Professor Jonas Lang

Over the past few years, particularly in the last two to three, I have actively contributed to the scientific community in ways that are somewhat unconventional. My work has primarily qualitative and in the tradition of action research, and focuses on addressing ethical issues within my field, organizational research, psychology, and management. Traditionally, researchers have assumed that our discipline, like many others, is capable of self-correction—that is, identifying and addressing incorrect analyses, fraudulent data, unethical behavior, and even simple errors. However, both my personal experience and recent developments within the field have shown that this assumption is fundamentally flawed. The system of self-correction, critique, and accountability appears to be broken.

I have taken it upon myself as a private person to address unethical behavior in science, particularly actions that harm junior researchers. I have also made efforts to correct inaccuracies in scientific records. In so doing, I have focused on the actions of four senior reseachers. 

Unfortunately, I have found these endeavors to be extremely challenging. One of the biggest obstacles is the need for bureaucratic approval—especially in Europe and the UK—where Institutional Review Board (IRB) consent is often required not only for the research design itself but also for basically any use of data. These rules are frequently used to block even basic critiques of others’ work. In my case, criticizing someone for unethical behavior or incorrect research would require the consent of the very person being criticized. This means that individuals engaged in unethical practices can effectively block efforts to hold them accountable. For example, I cannot answer a reseacher making false statements about me with their affiliation in a journal through a commentary submission (leaving Editors aside who are not exactly welcoming to these types of submissions).

In recent years, I have worked on three papers that highlight these issues. One is autobiographical, detailing my personal experiences. Another is a commentary on a published paper, calling for a retraction in a top-tier journal. The third manuscript seeks to correct a record of unethical behavior by correcting an authorship order involcing a junior reseacher who as a result of not being first author could not get a doctorate. However, my attempts to obtain IRB approval have not been unsuccessful, despite the fact that the ethical guidelines of my field require such efforts. This has further convinced me that the system of academic self-correction needs reform, and that academic freedom—the freedom to hold and express
dissenting opinions—is increasingly under threat.

What is even more troubling is how easily individuals can hide behind affiliations with minority groups, whether or not they truly belong to them, to shield themselves from criticism. This tactic, which in clinical practice is referred to as DARVO (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender), allows unethical individuals to position themselves as victims. To my dismay, this strategy often works, allowing transgressors to evade accountability.

Given this environment, I believe that reform is desperately needed. The field needs more people who are willing to speak out, a culture of openness, and a reassessment of the overly restrictive privacy protocols that are being used to stifle academic freedom. At the very least, we must create a space where facts can be discussed and debated without constant interference and bureaucratic roadblocks. Without such reforms, the field of organizational research will continue to be hampered by unethical behavior and an inability to correct itself.