{"id":305972,"date":"2024-03-05T09:43:52","date_gmt":"2024-03-05T08:43:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=305972"},"modified":"2024-03-05T09:43:54","modified_gmt":"2024-03-05T08:43:54","slug":"x-users-didnt-like-a-papers-tone-and-findings-so-they-got-it-rejected","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=305972","title":{"rendered":"X Users Didn’t Like a Paper’s Tone and Findings, So They Got It Rejected"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ross Pomeroy<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At Frontiers in Psychology, it seems that users on X are now part of the peer review process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On January 4th, the paper “Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students\u2019 intelligence is merely average,” was accepted to the journal. That same day, the abstract was published with the notice that the “final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Soon thereafter, the paper went viral, quickly accruing over 54,000 views, wide discussion on X and Reddit, and coverage in popular media (including RCS<\/a>). It garnered this attention for its intriguing yet simultaneously obvious finding: over the past 80 years, as a far greater proportion of North Americans attended college, the average IQ of college undergraduates dropped from around 120 to 102, just slightly above the average of 100.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the authors, Bob Uttl, a psychologist and faculty member at Mount Royal University, and his students Victoria Violo and Lacey Gibson, noted, “The decline in students\u2019 IQ is a necessary consequence of increasing educational attainment over the last 80 years. Today, graduating from university is more common than completing high school in the 1940s.” College students no longer come solely from the ranks of the highly intelligent and privileged, they come from all corners of society. Uttl and his colleagues noted that this has implications. For example, academic standards and curricula might have to be adjusted. Moreover, employers can’t assume that applicants with university degrees are more capable or smarter than those without degrees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A little over a month after Uttl, Violo, and Gibson’s paper was accepted and the abstract published, they were abruptly notified by email that it was rejected. They were apprised that Specialty Chief Editor Eddy Davelaar, a Professor of Psychology and Applied Neuroscience at Birkbeck, University of London, overrode the three peer reviewers who approved the paper and even his own handling editor. His reasons were subsequently forwarded to Uttl and his colleagues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Davelaar raised a couple of issues with the paper’s methods, the vast majority of his focus was on its tone. He wrote that the use of the word “merely” in reference to college students’ just-above-average IQ was “demeaning.” He also noted that the authors’ critiques of other scientists’ works “could have been packaged more sensitively.” He also called unfounded the authors’ opinion that the widening participation policies of universities were the cause of undergraduates’ falling IQs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In emails viewed by RealClearScience, Uttl extensively refuted Davelaar’s issues the same day the paper was rejected (Feb. 6), to which he received no reply from Davelaar or Frontiers for six days. On February 12, Frontiers replied saying that Davelaar’s concerns remained. If they were addressed, “the manuscript could be reconsidered for publication.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Uttl subsequently published his refutations of Davelaar’s methodological criticisms online<\/a>. Lending strength to his arguments is that fact that three peer reviewers and even Davelaar’s own handling editor did not find fault with Uttl’s paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Davelaar’s problems with the paper’s tone and conclusions were harder to address, because they were his opinions. It seemed strange that an editor’s opinions should supplant those of the paper’s authors. It’s not his paper, after all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response to a request for comment, Frontiers stated that an article can be rejected at any stage before official publication. A public relations manager then quoted their editorial process<\/a>, \u201c…if a manuscript does not meet our editorial criteria and standards for publication, or if peer-review or research integrity concerns are raised by any review participant or reader (abstracts are published online ahead of official publication), the journal’s chief editors and Frontiers’ Chief Executive Editor will investigate these concerns, regardless of peer review or acceptance stage.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frontiers added:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The Speciality Chief Editor (SCE) reviewed the paper in line with our clearly stated editorial process when concerns were raised about the abstract, particularly about underlying bias. The SCE assessment concurred with some reviewers\u2019 judgements, identifying substantive flaws in the meta-analysis and bias in the tone of the paper. The authors were given further opportunities to revise the paper in line with reviewer and SCE comments. These requested revisions were not made but once again disputed. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

RealClearScience reached out directly to Davelaar for comment, but he has not replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Uttl was curious what brought on the sudden rejection of his already accepted paper, so he asked representatives at Frontiers. He was told that \u201cseveral posts\u201d on X triggered Dr. Davelaar\u2019s review. As readers were only able to view the abstract, and thus weren’t able to assess the authors’ methodology, it seems clear that they complained purely about the authors’ tone and provocative conclusions. Davelaar only found ‘problems’ with Uttl, Violo, and Gibson’s methods afterwards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Uttl and his co-authors were not apprised of the content of the X posts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“I think an editor or whoever owes it to us to tell us what the issues are, allows us to respond, before rejection,” he told RCS in an email.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Uttl, Violo, and Gibson have since had their publication fees refunded and have submitted the paper for publication at another journal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article was originally published by RealClearScience.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At Frontiers in Psychology, it seems that users on X are now part of the peer review process.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":305974,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"At Frontiers in Psychology, it seems that users on X are now part of the peer review process.","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691827403,691827406,691827404,691827402,691827037,691827405],"class_list":["post-305972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-academic-standards","tag-college-students","tag-higher-education","tag-iq-of-college","tag-peer-review","tag-scientific-journals","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/zombie-apocalypse-header.jpg?fit=920%2C500&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1hB2","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":440832,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440832","url_meta":{"origin":305972,"position":0},"title":"How Blind Peer Review Stifles Scientific Progress","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/22\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The paper \"The Peer-Review Problem: A Sedimentological Perspective\" is a 2022 article (published in the Journal of the Indian Association of Sedimentologists, vol. 39, pp. 3\u201324) by G. Shanmugam, a geologist with extensive experience in process sedimentology and petroleum geology.","rel":"","context":"In \"Biomedical literature\"","block_context":{"text":"Biomedical literature","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biomedical-literature"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":303551,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=303551","url_meta":{"origin":305972,"position":1},"title":"Peer review expert journal accidentally publishes fake AI image with gibberish and giant gonads on a rat","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/20\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"It\u2019s not just that a clever AI image slipped through peer review, it\u2019s that it was garishly fake in a supersize kind of way. Scientifically everything about it was radioactive satire and yet it still got through \u201cpeer review\u201d.\u00a0 The words are gibberish. The editors didn\u2019t even run a spell\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"AI image\"","block_context":{"text":"AI image","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ai-image"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0CosmosWeekly-PeerReview_LEAD-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0CosmosWeekly-PeerReview_LEAD-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0CosmosWeekly-PeerReview_LEAD-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0CosmosWeekly-PeerReview_LEAD-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0CosmosWeekly-PeerReview_LEAD-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":440829,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=440829","url_meta":{"origin":305972,"position":2},"title":"From Einstein’s Disdain to the Turbidite Orthodoxy: How Blind Peer Review Stifles Scientific Progress","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/22\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Shanmugam argues that while peer review serves as a quality-control mechanism for scientific publishing and grants, it suffers from deep, systemic flaws that hinder innovation and fairness. He notes that Albert Einstein expressed disdain for peer review, and that the system\u2014often conducted as double-blind review to mask identities\u2014loses the transparency\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Bias\"","block_context":{"text":"Bias","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bias"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-From-Einsteins-Disdain-to-the-Turbidite-Orthodoxy-How-Blind-Peer-Review-Stifles-Scientific-Progress.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":415493,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=415493","url_meta":{"origin":305972,"position":3},"title":"Peer-Reviewing Peer Review","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"We\u2019re told, endlessly, that science is a self-correcting machine. A pristine engine of truth where bad ideas are discarded, and good ones rise to the top like cream. We are told to\u00a0\u201cTrust The Science\u2122\u201c\u00a0because it has passed the magical, mystical trial known as\u00a0Peer Review.","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201csophisticated global networks\u201d\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201csophisticated global networks\u201d","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=sophisticated-global-networks"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0AQOHQLpQZ-HBGVDRmGb2-fMsaY5QvJYypJZGDrQl7uirwrO89EA237ct6PtPMweZt2iAodbOmI6gfbccHlBmcKvCbUe_4-bKJd-ZM4nbc1yb3BUQeCo9xtKHDsmmqq9X-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C677&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0AQOHQLpQZ-HBGVDRmGb2-fMsaY5QvJYypJZGDrQl7uirwrO89EA237ct6PtPMweZt2iAodbOmI6gfbccHlBmcKvCbUe_4-bKJd-ZM4nbc1yb3BUQeCo9xtKHDsmmqq9X-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C677&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0AQOHQLpQZ-HBGVDRmGb2-fMsaY5QvJYypJZGDrQl7uirwrO89EA237ct6PtPMweZt2iAodbOmI6gfbccHlBmcKvCbUe_4-bKJd-ZM4nbc1yb3BUQeCo9xtKHDsmmqq9X-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C677&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0AQOHQLpQZ-HBGVDRmGb2-fMsaY5QvJYypJZGDrQl7uirwrO89EA237ct6PtPMweZt2iAodbOmI6gfbccHlBmcKvCbUe_4-bKJd-ZM4nbc1yb3BUQeCo9xtKHDsmmqq9X-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C677&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0AQOHQLpQZ-HBGVDRmGb2-fMsaY5QvJYypJZGDrQl7uirwrO89EA237ct6PtPMweZt2iAodbOmI6gfbccHlBmcKvCbUe_4-bKJd-ZM4nbc1yb3BUQeCo9xtKHDsmmqq9X-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C677&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":407808,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=407808","url_meta":{"origin":305972,"position":4},"title":"Paper Chase: A Global Industry Fuels Scientific Fraud in the U.S.","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/12\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In southern India, a new enterprise called Peer Publicon Consultancy offers a full suite of services to scientific researchers. It will not only write a scholarly paper for a fee but also guarantee publishing the fraudulent work in a respected journal.\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE)\"","block_context":{"text":"Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=committee-on-publishing-ethics-cope"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQOEhUmD6wjhGGXr_0KFsjw3VVsaiH5ydpoS3VddfqojH_9v52zGbSNsM-9EdDE8igha5rys2AsD_Y0TMo5mLDS0s0KIQqgq3cCymfsDd2HVyk-abWeQDV1hZDUzKMDP-1.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQOEhUmD6wjhGGXr_0KFsjw3VVsaiH5ydpoS3VddfqojH_9v52zGbSNsM-9EdDE8igha5rys2AsD_Y0TMo5mLDS0s0KIQqgq3cCymfsDd2HVyk-abWeQDV1hZDUzKMDP-1.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQOEhUmD6wjhGGXr_0KFsjw3VVsaiH5ydpoS3VddfqojH_9v52zGbSNsM-9EdDE8igha5rys2AsD_Y0TMo5mLDS0s0KIQqgq3cCymfsDd2HVyk-abWeQDV1hZDUzKMDP-1.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQOEhUmD6wjhGGXr_0KFsjw3VVsaiH5ydpoS3VddfqojH_9v52zGbSNsM-9EdDE8igha5rys2AsD_Y0TMo5mLDS0s0KIQqgq3cCymfsDd2HVyk-abWeQDV1hZDUzKMDP-1.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQOEhUmD6wjhGGXr_0KFsjw3VVsaiH5ydpoS3VddfqojH_9v52zGbSNsM-9EdDE8igha5rys2AsD_Y0TMo5mLDS0s0KIQqgq3cCymfsDd2HVyk-abWeQDV1hZDUzKMDP-1.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276941,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=276941","url_meta":{"origin":305972,"position":5},"title":"Media Ignores Story of Unjustified Retraction of a Climate Skeptical Paper Due to Bullying","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/02\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"While many media outlets ran stories this week about a scientific paper suggesting that Penguin chicks in Antarctica are dying by the thousands (despite evidence suggesting\u00a0they aren\u2019t), the mainstream media ignored another story that shows an ugly episode of bullying of a science journal by prominent climate scientists who demanded\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Climategate10years_scr.webp?fit=1200%2C967&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Climategate10years_scr.webp?fit=1200%2C967&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Climategate10years_scr.webp?fit=1200%2C967&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Climategate10years_scr.webp?fit=1200%2C967&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Climategate10years_scr.webp?fit=1200%2C967&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/305972","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=305972"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/305972\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":305975,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/305972\/revisions\/305975"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/305974"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=305972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=305972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=305972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}