In 2020, psychologists became more aware of institutional racism and tried to address these problems. An article that relied on invalid data by a racist psychologist was retracted, but other articles were not. In 2020, I asked the editor of the journal “Intelligence” to retract a flawed and racist article (Schimmack, 2020). The editor agreed that it was flawed, but they declined the request to retract it. Today, I asked the new editors to revisit this decision. I also discussed the pros and cons of a retraction with ChatGPT and it decided in favor of retraction. Let’s see whether editors of a journal that studies human intelligence are as intelligent as artificial intelligence.
ChatGPT’s Reason to Reject a Racist Article in the journal “Intelligence”
The question of whether journals should retract harmful articles has become increasingly urgent. While retraction has traditionally been reserved for fraud, plagiarism, or serious methodological errors, there is growing recognition that some published work is not only scientifically unsound but also perpetuates harmful ideologies. A prime example is the continued presence of race-IQ articles in the journal Intelligence.
One such paper, Lynn & Meisenberg (2010), claimed that “national IQs” are valid because they correlate with skin color. This argument is both circular and racist: it assumes cognitive inferiority in darker-skinned populations and then treats this stereotype as evidence that IQ tests measure “intelligence.” Despite these flaws, the article has been cited around 80 times, often without critique, allowing it to reinforce stereotypes under the guise of scientific authority.
When asked whether such a paper should be retracted, ChatGPT applied standard retraction principles, including those set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):
- Unreliable data: The national IQ data are based on poor sampling and questionable aggregation.
- Invalid reasoning: The validation argument is circular, using a stereotype as “evidence.”
- Ethical concerns: The article promotes racial hierarchy narratives that lack scientific justification.
- Ongoing harm: The paper continues to be cited as if it were credible science.
While some argue that retraction risks erasing history, this is a misconception. Retraction does not remove an article from the record—the PDF remains available, but with a clear notice explaining why the work is not reliable. This corrects the scientific record, prevents misuse, and maintains transparency.
Based on these considerations, ChatGPT concluded that retraction is warranted. A responsible retraction notice would explain that the article’s reasoning is scientifically invalid and that it has been misused to support harmful claims about racial differences in intelligence.
This case illustrates why retraction should not be seen as censorship but as quality control. By marking demonstrably flawed and harmful articles, journals protect their readers, their reputations, and the integrity of science itself.