James Wright, the derelict editor who enabled the infamous anti-gay Regnerus hoax, has once again been caught in flagrante telling lies.
The untruths involve interactions between Wright and the publisher Elsevier regarding the “impact factor” for “Social Science Research,” the disreputable journal that published the two anti-gay Regnerus packages in June and November, 2012.
In the case that John M. Becker is bringing against Wright’s University of Central Florida, Wright’s Deposition was filed on June 25, 2013.
Asked this question for the Deposition:
“Does your publisher have discussions with you about what level — what your impact factor is from day to day, week to week, month to month?”
“no, it’s not day to day, week to week, or month to month. Once a year, new impact factor scores come out, and I get an E-mail sent to me through Elsevier that says, ‘Your impact factor for last year was’ … whatever it was. And that’s about the extent of it.”
Wright’s statement there, however, is completely contradicted in the “Audit” he published of the process through which the first anti-gay Regnerus package saw the light of day. The Auditor, Darren Sherkat, tried to make the case that Regnerus’s junk science and the additional junk papers published with and in support of it resulted from Elsevier putting pressure on Wright to improve the journal’s impact factor. One thing Sherkat confessed in his audit was that “rigorous independent evaluation of these manuscripts would have made Social Science Research a less popular but better journal.”
Here is what the Audit Wright published has to say specifically about impact factor:
“The fetishism of the journal impact factors comes from the top down, and all major publishers prod editors about the current state of their impact factor. Elsevier is particularly attentive to this and frequently inquires about what Wright is doing to improve the already admirable impact factor of Social Science Research.” (Bolding added).
In Becker’s lawsuit, where Wright is trying to portray himself as not having published Regnerus’s anti-gay junk science because of “impact factor”-related pressures, he says that he only hears from Elsevier about impact factors once yearly.
But in the Audit, where Wright is trying to show that Elsevier puts a lot of “impact-related” pressure on him, and that therefore, he should be excused for publishing Regnerus’s junk science in a hot rush, we read that Elsevier “frequently inquires about what Wright is doing to improve” “Social Science Research’s” impact factor.
The statements are mutually exclusive. It can not possibly be the case that 1) Wright only hears once per year from Elsevier about “Social Science Research’s” impact factor, and that 2) Elsevier frequently inquires about what Wright is doing to improve “Social Science Research’s” impact factor.
Notice also, in the Deposition, Wright says he heard only once per year from Elsevier, and only about what the “Social Science Research” impact factor for the year just past was.
In thoroughgoing contradiction to that, the Audit says that Wright hears “frequently” from Elsevier, which wants to know what he is doing to improve “Social Science Research’s” impact factor.
As previously reported, whereas the Audit claims that Wright is so busy with “Social Science Research” work that he could not possibly have been expected to find topic experts without fiduciary conflicts of interest to peer review the Regnerus and Marks submissions, Wright in his deposition says that on average, he spends just three to four hours per week working on the journal “Social Science Research.”
According to the public court record for Becker’s lawsuit, Becker filed a September 18, 2013 Motion for Discovery to Re-Depose James Wright based on changed testimony. Then on September 20, UCF filed a Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Re-Depose Dr. James Wright.
The University of Central Florida Board of Trustees are named as Defendant in Becker’s lawsuit. If they have any interest in their school’s integrity, they will promptly let the public know whether Wright was lying about Elsevier and impact factor matters in his Deposition, or in the Audit he published.