Gray’s False Accusations Necessitate Establishing Standards of Evidence for Making Claims of Misconduct Academic Article uri icon


  • ABSTRACTClaims of misconduct must be accompanied by verifiable proof. In “Diagnosis versus Ideological Diversity,” Phillip W. Gray (2019) professes the need to address bias and dishonesty in research but contradicts his stated goals by making untrue and unsupported allegations of misconduct. He equates a coding error with LaCour and Green’s (2014) suspected data fabrication while disregarding publicly available contradictory evidence. In this evidence-based article, we demonstrate that Gray made a series of false accusations of research dishonesty and ideological bias. His assertions not only are unsupported; the evidence also shows the opposite. PS: Political Science & Politics edited Gray’s article after publication and online distribution—removing or modifying the most explicitly false and harmful statements—and changed his central thesis but without changing the DOI. This resulted in two different articles with the same DOI. Although retraction is uncommon, this degree of post-publication modification appears to meet the threshold. The published corrigendum failed to address Gray’s false allegations, pervasive and unsubstantiated insinuations of misconduct, and errors that persist in the second edition of his article. The constellation of behaviors by the journal and Gray contradicts academic norms and emphasizes the need to establish clear standards of evidence when making accusations of academic misconduct.

published proceedings

  • PS: Political Science & Politics

altmetric score

  • 0.5

author list (cited authors)

  • Verhulst, B., & Hatemi, P. K

citation count

  • 0

complete list of authors

  • Verhulst, Brad||Hatemi, Peter K

publication date

  • October 2020