In a landmark decision, the Journal of School Psychology, an Elsevier publication, has retracted an article on IQ testing nearly 50 years after its original publication. The retraction follows more than three decades after an investigation by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) found that the lead author, Dr. Stephen Breuning, engaged in widespread data fabrication across multiple studies.
The retracted article, titled “Effects of Individualized Incentives on Norm-Referenced IQ Test Performance of High School Students in Special Education Classes,” was published in 1978. It claimed that offering incentives such as record albums and sports tickets could significantly boost IQ test scores among special education students. However, a recent inquiry raised substantial doubts regarding the legitimacy of the reported findings.
Background and Investigation Timeline
Breuning, formerly an assistant professor of child psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, was a central figure in one of the earliest major research misconduct cases in the U.S. academic landscape. A 1987 NIMH report concluded that he had “knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in misleading and deceptive practices,” fabricating results in at least ten articles funded by NIMH grants.
While several of Breuning’s papers were retracted in the 1980s and more recently in 2022 and 2023, the 1978 study was not initially part of the NIMH probe, as it had different funding sources. The study resurfaced in early 2022 when research psychologist Dr. Russell Warne began scrutinizing Breuning’s unretracted work and flagged the article to the journal’s editor-in-chief, Dr. Craig Albers.
After a lengthy review, the journal issued a formal retraction notice in December 2024, citing concerns about the trustworthiness of the data. The notice reads:
“Although the above article was not part of the NIMH investigation as it fell outside the scope of NIMH-funded research, the NIMH Panel report identified an ongoing pattern of scientific misconduct by Dr. Breuning that introduces substantial concerns regarding the trustworthiness of this article. Despite several attempts, Dr. Breuning has not responded to requests for an explanation. The co-author confirmed that he was only involved in statistical analysis and not in data collection.”
The journal’s retraction decision was based on the documented history of Breuning’s misconduct, which established a broader pattern of scientific fraud.
Delays and Challenges in Retraction Process
Despite the compelling evidence, the retraction process took nearly three years following Warne’s initial concerns. When asked about the delay, Elsevier stated that investigations require thorough procedures, including notification of authors, which can contribute to extended timelines.
Dr. Warne attributed the delay to several factors, including misdirected initial emails and changes in editorial leadership at the journal. He expressed frustration over the prolonged timeline and called for clearer guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to expedite similar cases.
Co-author’s Response and Acknowledgment
In his investigation, Warne also reached out to the study’s co-author, Dr. William Zella, who was Breuning’s fellow graduate student at the Illinois Institute of Technology in the 1970s. Zella, who was responsible for statistical analysis, stated that he had no role in data collection and now believes the study was likely fabricated.
“He agreed that the study probably never happened,” Warne said, noting that Zella was displeased that his name was associated with fraudulent work.
Lingering Impact on the Scientific Record
Despite Breuning’s tarnished reputation, his work has continued to influence the academic community. The now-retracted 1978 study has been cited 12 times according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, and its findings were included in a 2011 meta-analysis published in PNAS, titled “Role of Test Motivation in Intelligence Testing.” The meta-analysis, which has been cited over 200 times, integrated Breuning’s data into broader conclusions about the role of motivation in IQ test performance.
Following Warne’s outreach, PNAS confirmed that they are investigating the inclusion of the fraudulent data. A spokesperson from PNAS stated, “We are aware of the matter and looking into it.” Warne has suggested that the journal should issue an Expression of Concern to clarify that the meta-analysis authors were not at fault and to prevent further citations of tainted data.
The Need for Vigilance Against Long-Buried Fraud
Warne’s investigation highlights the persistent risks of fraudulent research contaminating the scientific record, even decades later. He emphasized that fraudulent studies can continue to mislead researchers and policymakers, re-victimizing co-authors and readers who unknowingly rely on compromised findings.
“This case underscores the need for ongoing scrutiny and more responsive processes to correct the scientific record,” Warne remarked.
The retraction of Breuning’s 1978 study serves as a sobering reminder of the long-lasting impact of scientific misconduct and the importance of maintaining vigilance in research integrity. While the retraction comes late, it is a crucial step in rectifying the academic record and preventing further harm.
Academic journals and publishers are now being urged to implement stronger proactive measures to identify and address potentially fraudulent work before it can shape future research and policy.