The unfortunate appointment process for the editorship of the journal Intelligence
As some of the readers here may already know, the publishing house Elsevier has appointed two new editors-in-chief for the journal Intelligence in January 2025, succeeding the retiring editor. In doing so, Elsevier ignored suggestions made by the long-time editor and former President of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), Richard Haier (University of California, Irvine1). The responsible professional association ISIR was also ignored.
Instead, Elsevier appointed two persons as editors of the journal Intelligence who were not known to have any particular expertise in the field of intelligence research or to support its scientific mission. In response, the vast majority of scientists resigned from the editorial board of the journal Intelligence. And a new journal was founded by Thomas Coyle under the auspices of former editor Richard Haier (2016–2024) and founding editor of Intelligence (1977–2016) Doug Detterman:
Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities.2
Most of the members of the former editorial board of Intelligence under Richard Haier are now on the editorial board of Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities.3
Elsevier’s appointment of Intelligence’s new editors-in-chief was preceded by numerous emails and letters of protest from members of the editorial board to Elsevier in December 2024. In the wake of these protests, on December 6, I sent an email to Amar Atwal. Amar Atwal was the responsible person at Elsevier. The email was sent to the list of editorial board members used by Elsevier (the list included the two new editors). In this email I have tried to provide reasons why the choice of the two persons named by Elsevier in the email for the editorship was not convincing. I never received a response from Elsevier or the newly appointed editors. Obviously, they didn’t seem to care about the arguments.
I would like to document this email here.
Email sent to the email list used by Elsevier: to Elsevier and the members of the editorial board including the two new editors
December 6, 2024
Dear Amar Atwal,
Thank you for sending the information about the new editors in chief of the journal Intelligence.
The news has caused some surprise and confusion, both in terms of the people selected and the process by which they were chosen. In short, the fit of the persons with the requirement profile of an editor of the journal Intelligence as well as the non-participative and non-democratic selection process are viewed critically.
Prof. Douglas Detterman founded the journal Intelligence in 1977. Part of the mission was to create an opportunity for intelligence researchers to publish their work, which was and is often desk-rejected in other journals for adherence to other paradigms, general ideological reasons and different emphasis on scientific versus extra-scientific orientations. Editors should have a high level of professional expertise, demonstrated for example by many and widely received publications in the field, and by attitudes that support the mission of the journal of Intelligence.
About the persons:
Samuel Greiff was already co-editor of the journal Intelligence for some time. That is a very good prerequisite! However, there are rumors that he left this position because he could not identify with the journal’s scientific values, which are expressed in this editorial:
Haier, R. J. (2020). Academic freedom and social responsibility: Finding a balance. Intelligence, 101482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101482
Greiff does not mention his former co-editorship of this journal on his own homepage (although his work as editor of other journals is stressed by him), and intelligence is not listed among the research topics he names (“My academic publications circle around ILSAs ...”; https://samuelgreiff.academicwebsite.com, 29.11.2024).
Samuel Greiff mentions on his homepage that he is currently editor of the journal Learning and Individual Differences. The following contribution was published there this year:
Rutkowski, L., Rutkowski, D., & Thompson, G. (2024). What are we measuring in international assessments? Learning? Probably. Intelligence? Not likely. Learning and Individual Differences, 110, 102421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102421
In this paper in the chapter “Some important developments in intelligence research” intelligence research was associated with evil political events: Examples of attributes they use in their article:
– “debunked science”,
– “shoddy data”,
– “death of millions”,
– “holocaust”,
– three times “inferior”,
– seven times “racial hierarchy/hierarchies” and
– obsessively thirteen times “eugenics/eugenic”.
I submitted then to the journal Learning and Individual Differences a reply to such allegations against intelligence research including an empirical test of a statement of Rutkowski et al. (the empirical test showed the opposite was backed by data). In addition, I have rebutted a position attributed to me as incorrect (a description of the position of other authors in a literature review I wrote on the state of research in this area was falsely attributed to me).
This reply was rejected by the editor Samuel Greiff. The reviews on which the rejection was based mentioned comments from a reviewer, but these were not displayed and when I requested that these comments be sent to me, I did not receive them (only an acknowledgement of my request; September 10, 2024). The manuscript is now available here: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9stby
[In order to reach a conclusion that is as neutral and objective as possible, the following section was written with the assistance of AI which was provided with the text described in the sections above.]
Does this suggest that someone has been appointed as editor of the journal Intelligence who appears not to align with the journal’s values, omits this former role from the CV on his homepage, does not list intelligence research as a focus area, permits the publication of politically charged critiques of intelligence research that include false claims, but then denies intelligence researchers the opportunity to respond to these allegations?
The second mentioned next editor in chief, Dragos Iliescu, is not a member of the editorial board and has published in Intelligence only one paper (1.5% of his publications; based on Web of Science, 29.11.2024).4 Even some of our students have published more articles in the journal (e.g., one of mine 8 articles).
All this does not mean that the two people proposed are not excellent scientists nor great scholars. Based on what has been described, it just seems that the fit is rather suboptimal. After all, we all receive invitations almost every day to join the editorial board of journals such as of oncology, gynecology or chemistry, but we do not accept them because the specific fit is simply not there.
About the selection process of new editors in chief:
Recently, the Association for Psychological Science was looking for a new editor for the journal Perspectives and asked society members for suggestions. Apparently, the International Society for Intelligence Research was not consulted in the selection of the new editors of the journal Intelligence, nor were the previous editors contacted or informed in advance. Modern management methods rely on participatory decision-making mechanisms and incorporate the expertise of experts in a field.
Sure, China’s success shows that things can be done differently, at least for a while, but why were modern democratic, participatory decision-making processes that involve experts not used here? What were the reasons for this procedure and why as its result these two scientists were chosen?
Thank you for a prompt and informative answer.
Best regards,
Heiner Rindermann
Co-author e.g. of:
“Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Causes of international differences in cognitive ability tests.” 2016. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399
“Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: The FLynn effect and the future of intelligence.” 2017. Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.061
“Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts’ background, controversial issues, and the media.” 2020. Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406
Final assessment of Elsevier’s appointment process for the editorship of journal Intelligence
(1) It is not right for an editor to let publish in his journal false statements about other authors (they would be claiming things they did not say), but this was done by one of the new editors selected by Elsevier in his previous role as editor of Learning and Individual Differences. Elsevier was aware of this.
(2) As editor-in-chief of a journal, it is ethically wrong to deny the persons attacked in that journal a reply. But this was done by one of the new editors selected by Elsevier in his previous role as editor of Learning and Individual Differences. This contradicts the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).5 Elsevier was aware of this.
(3) As an editor, it is not correct not to deliver the reviews mentioned in the feedback of a reviewer and not to answer the author’s request. But this was done by one of the new editors selected by Elsevier in his previous role as editor of Learning and Individual Differences. Elsevier was aware of this.
(4) It is not recommendable to entrust the editorship of a journal to persons who do not have particular expertise in this field (e.g. as demonstrated by a larger number of publications in this field). But that was done by Elsevier. Elsevier was aware of this.
(5) It is not recommendable to entrust the editorship of a journal to persons who do not underscore the mission of a journal. From the outside, it is incomprehensible why publishing (as editor) hatred and agitation against intelligence research and its authors should qualify one to be appointed editor of the journal Intelligence. But that was done by Elsevier. Elsevier was aware of this.
(6) It is not a good idea to entrust the editorship of a journal to people who have violated ethical principles of editorship in the course of their work in the past. Elsevier was aware of this.
(7) It is not advisable not to involve professional societies and experts in a field (such as members of an editorial board) in the selection process for editors-in-chief. This was not done by Elsevier in this case.
(8) If science is understood as a rational endeavor, it always makes sense to respond to the suggestions and criticism of others and to engage with them in an argumentative manner. This was missing here.
Professor Richard Haier’s homepage: www.richardhaier.com
Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities homepage:
https://icajournal.com, https://icajournal.scholasticahq.com
Editorial board of Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities: https://icajournal.scholasticahq.com/editorial-board
Update 10 March 2025, Web of Science: One as first author (2016), one as second author (2020). Depending on the time and the computer used, Dragos Iliescu is listed by Web of Science as one, three or even six different authors.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): “Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond.” “Whenever it is recognised that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.” https://publicationethics.org/files/2008%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf