Group and Organization Management retracted eight articles by the dismissed Nijmegen psychology associate professor. What happened behind the scenes, and how are the new editor-in-chiefs attempting to reform the journal?

On April 9, management scientist Billy Obenauer (University of Maine) received a question from a colleague. Was he certain that a 2024 publication of his in Group and Organization Management (GOM) had indeed been handled by the editor he thought had?

The article was a commentary that Obenauer, who himself was an editorial review board member at the journal at the time, had written together with then-Radboud researcher Yannick Griep. Back then, Griep was editor-in-chief of GOM. At scientific journals, individual editors decide whether or not an article is published, after consultation with external experts (peer review). To avoid conflicts of interest, another editor had handled their submission and had it reviewed. At least, that is what Obenauer thought until April 9.

‘I learned from a trusted source that that editor had not issued the decision on that submission’, Obenauer explains over a via video call from the United States. ‘But my co-author (Griep, ed.) had made it appear that way. In WhatsApp-messages, for example, he wrote that the editor was positive. And the decision letter had that editor’s name in the signature.’

Four days later, Obenauer requested a retraction from SAGE, the publisher of GOM, which conducted further investigation. This summer, the publisher eventually retracted the article, along with seven other articles of which Griep was a co-author. In all of them, the peer review – the quality assessment by peers before publication – was ‘compromised’, in other words: flawed.

Something similar was going on with at least one of the other seven retracted articles, an author of the publication in question described on LinkedIn late last month. Here, too, the editor who had ostensibly handled the article turned out to know nothing about it. In fact, even the review comments were fabricated.

Now, Obenauer is editor-in-chief of GOM himself, together with Paul Harvey (University of New Hampshire). They are attempting to strengthen the journal, e.g. by implementing new guidance. When asked, several researchers in the field say they appreciate this decisiveness and transparency.

Mr. Obenauer, what was your role in those eight retracted articles co-authored by Griep?

‘On April 10, I looked at a number of other articles on which he was a co-author. I quickly saw that there was a pattern, and I reported concerns about five additional articles to the publisher. SAGE conducted the further investigation, independently of me and the journal’s editors.’

Shouldn’t you have realized yourself that Griep was not acting with integrity?

‘Trust is essential in the academic world; you assume that colleagues act in good faith. When he invited me to collaborate on that piece he was the editor-in-chief of a respected journal,  I had no reason to be concerned. I see the retraction of these and other articles primarily as an example of science’s self-correcting mechanism. It shows the system works – provided there are enough people who are committed to the same scientific values.’

Are you reviewing more articles that appeared when he was editor-in-chief?

‘Investigating every article that was published over four years is not feasible. But when concerns are brought to our attention, which has already been the case, we share them with SAGE’s research integrity team. Our focus is on strengthening the journal moving forward and advancing science. I understand that certain scientists in our field are angry, but in my opinion, it is not the right approach to focus on a single person. That happens all too often.’

‘There must be room for redemption and second chances in life, even if those second chances come elsewhere’

Why is that not okay?

‘We need to balance accountability with compassion. The former editor is no longer editor and no longer a faculty member at Radboud. At this point, focusing on him does nothing to advance the field. Of course I have emotions about having my own article retracted, but I also want him to be okay. When something like this is scrutinized in the media, a person cannot get away from it. I do not think that something like this should haunt someone for life. There must also be room for redemption and second chances in life, even if those second chances come elsewhere.’

‘If not, I fear, the consequence is that people will find it even harder to speak out about their own mistakes. You will think twice before trying to do the right thing if you think that it would put your career at risk. For example, someone may be hesitant to conduct a replication study (which exactly repeats previous experiments, ed.), because they do not want others to attempt to replicate their work, out of fear this may point to flaws in their own work. Ultimately, that is not good for science, nor for public trust in it.’

So what is the way forward?

‘I think it makes more sense to look at how we can learn from cases like this to improve our processes. There is no silver bullet, but we need to have more conversations: daring to discuss doubts about our own work more openly, with more room for vulneribility. At GOM, we are now trying to put this into practice by focusing more on transparency and open science. We are encouraging researchers to openly discuss limitations of their work in their manuscripts. We hope to distinguish ourselves in this way from now on.’

The irony is: Griep wrote that as editor-in-chief as well, in a piece together with all the editors, including yourself.

‘It is dangerous to discount the contributions and commitments of multiple members of a group based on the actions of one member of that group. We should find opportunities to advance our field. Paul and I have already taken several steps to this end. For instance, we have established a clear standard for who can be associate editors. The criteria are mostly based on things like years since your PhD and publication record. Your credentials should be consistent with what authors would expect when submitting to the journal.’

‘GOM will also provide space for replication studies. That type of research is often difficult to publish now. However, it helps us build a more informative body of research, and that is what it ultimately comes down to. I believe so strongly in this work that I have essentially built my career on replication research. We currently have several initiatives, such as an open call for submissions to a special issue for replications.’

How credible do your colleagues in the field find this new strategy?

‘Some editors have resigned in recent months. They think: seeing is believing. Others have been incredibly supportive. I am convinced that if peers start believing in our new approach, they will come to GOM of their own accord. I hope that young researchers will realize that you can also build a career through replication studies and transparent research.’

Yannick Griep did not respond to questions from Vox.