The Illusion of Quality Control

How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing

Sep 03, 2025

The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing

Reading Notes: Critical Evidence Supporting "The Illusion of Quality Control"

Abstract

This article critically examines the widely held belief that peer review ensures quality in top-tier academic journals. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we argue that the current peer review system facilitates the publication of methodologically sound but intellectually mediocre research while systematically excluding genuine innovations that challenge established paradigms. Through analysis of recent trends in AI-assisted manuscript generation, preprint publishing dynamics, and editorial rejection patterns, we demonstrate that prestigious journals have become primary sources of high-quality "garbage"—technically competent but scientifically vacuous research that meets formal requirements while contributing minimal advancement to knowledge. Meanwhile, privacy laws protecting editorial correspondence create an evidence-proof shield that prevents systematic documentation of reviewer bias and editorial misconduct. This analysis reveals a fundamental paradox: while preprint platforms, lacking peer review gatekeeping, are dismissed as repositories for unverified claims, they increasingly represent the only venues where authentic scholarly discourse and paradigm-challenging research can find expression. We present case studies of editorial rejection patterns that illustrate how institutional gatekeeping systematically suppresses disruptive innovation while enabling the proliferation of conformist pseudo-research.

Keywords: peer review, academic publishing, editorial bias, preprint publishing, artificial intelligence, research quality, institutional gatekeeping, scientific innovation

Introduction

The academic publishing ecosystem rests upon a fundamental assumption: peer review serves as an effective quality control mechanism that ensures only rigorous, significant research reaches publication in prestigious journals. This belief has become so deeply entrenched that "peer-reviewed" has become synonymous with scholarly legitimacy. However, mounting evidence suggests this assumption is not merely flawed but actively harmful to scientific progress.^1-5

The proliferation of artificial intelligence tools in academic writing has exposed a critical vulnerability in the peer review system. Research indicates that up to 22% of computer science papers now contain AI-generated content, with similar trends emerging across multiple disciplines. Paradoxically, these AI-assisted papers, despite their algorithmic origin, successfully navigate peer review processes designed to evaluate human scholarly work.^{2, 6, 7}

Simultaneously, privacy regulations have created an impenetrable barrier around editorial correspondence, making systematic analysis of reviewer bias and editorial misconduct nearly impossible. This regulatory shield, ostensibly designed to protect individual privacy, has evolved into an institutional defense mechanism that insulates the peer review system from accountability and reform.^{8, 9}

The Manufacturing of Academic Mediocrity
The AI-Assisted Publication Pipeline

Contemporary academic publishing has evolved into a systematic production line for generating technically competent but intellectually sterile research. The process follows a predictable pattern: conduct experiments using sophisticated instrumentation, generate authentic data, and employ AI tools to craft manuscripts that conform to established narrative frameworks.^{5, 6}

This approach virtually guarantees publication in high-impact journals, provided the research adheres to mainstream theoretical perspectives and employs accepted methodologies. The authenticity of experimental data shields these publications from challenges of fabrication or misconduct, while their conformity to established paradigms ensures favorable peer review.^{1, 2, 7}

Leading research institutions possess all necessary components for this publication assembly line: access to expensive equipment, technical expertise for data generation, and AI tools for manuscript production. The resulting publications meet all formal criteria for scholarly excellence while contributing minimal advancement to scientific understanding.^{5, 7}

The Immunity Conferred by Prestigious Publication

Once published in top-tier journals, these methodologically sound but intellectually hollow papers acquire an aura of authority that renders them virtually immune to criticism. The peer review process, rather than ensuring quality, becomes a credentialing mechanism that transforms mediocre research into "breakthrough discoveries" through association with prestigious venues.^{1, 3, 10}

This dynamic creates a self-perpetuating cycle: mediocre research published in prestigious journals establishes the benchmark for future submissions, while genuinely innovative work that challenges established paradigms faces systematic rejection. The result is an academic ecosystem where conformity to existing frameworks becomes more valuable than intellectual contribution.^{11, 12}

Career Advancement Through Manufactured Achievement

The current system enables thousands of graduate students and early-career researchers to meet degree and employment requirements through participation in this publication mill. High-impact publications, regardless of their intellectual merit, satisfy institutional metrics for academic success, creating powerful incentives for continued participation in this system.^{13, 14}

Meanwhile, researchers committed to genuine scholarly inquiry—those who challenge fundamental assumptions or propose paradigm shifts—find themselves systematically excluded from mainstream publication venues. This exclusion extends beyond mere publication difficulties to career marginalization, as innovative thinkers struggle to secure academic positions in a system that rewards conformity over creativity.^{11, 12}

The Paradox of Preprint Publishing
Academic Dismissal Versus Intellectual Value

Preprint platforms occupy a curious position in contemporary academic discourse. Despite lacking formal peer review mechanisms, these platforms increasingly serve as repositories for the most intellectually honest and methodologically rigorous research in many fields.^14-16

The absence of peer review gatekeeping on preprint platforms creates space for research that challenges established paradigms—precisely the type of work most likely to face rejection from traditional journals. Authors who submit to preprint platforms typically do so because they believe their research contributions are sufficiently important to warrant public attention, regardless of mainstream academic validation.^{13-15, 17}

The Quality Paradox

Academic institutions systematically devalue preprint publications, treating them as preliminary or inferior work despite their often superior intellectual content. This devaluation reflects institutional bias toward credentialing mechanisms rather than actual research quality.^{13, 14, 16, 18}

The irony is stark: preprint platforms, which lack formal quality control mechanisms, increasingly host research with greater intellectual integrity and methodological rigor than their peer-reviewed counterparts. Meanwhile, journals with rigorous peer review processes systematically exclude innovative research while promoting technically competent mediocrity.^{1, 11, 15, 17}

The Evidence-Proof Shield of Privacy Law
The Impossibility of Systematic Analysis

When critics challenge the effectiveness of peer review systems, defenders invariably demand empirical evidence of bias or misconduct. However, privacy laws governing editorial correspondence make such evidence virtually impossible to obtain, creating a perfect circular defense for the current system.^{9, 19}

This legal framework transforms privacy protection from a shield for individuals into institutional armor for publishing systems. Editorial decisions that may reflect bias, incompetence, or misconduct remain protected under confidentiality provisions that prevent systematic analysis and accountability.^{8, 20-22}

The Methodological Trap

The demand for data-driven evidence of peer review failures creates an impossible methodological standard. Systematic documentation of editorial bias requires access to rejection correspondence, reviewer comments, and editorial decision-making processes—precisely the materials protected by privacy legislation.^{9, 23}

This creates a logical trap: the peer review system can only be reformed based on evidence that current legal frameworks make impossible to collect. Meanwhile, anecdotal reports of bias and misconduct are dismissed as insufficient for systemic conclusions, despite their consistency across disciplines and institutions.^{11, 12}

Case Study Analysis: Editorial Rejection Patterns
Case 1: Qeios Editorial Response - The Gamification of Submission Limits

Rejection Context: Author received communication from Qeios editorial team discouraging "multiple submissions in very close succession" and rejecting a manuscript for "relying heavily on non-scholarly and non-academic sources."

Analysis: This rejection exemplifies several problematic editorial practices:

1. Artificial Publication Pacing: The editorial team's concern about "rapid succession" submissions reveals an arbitrary preference for publication rhythm over content quality. This gamification approach treats scholarly communication as a resource management exercise rather than knowledge dissemination.
2. Source Hierarchy Bias: The rejection of "non-scholarly sources" (Wikipedia, blogs, news articles) demonstrates rigid adherence to traditional authority structures, dismissing potentially valuable evidence based solely on publication venue rather than content quality.
3. Formatting Over Substance: Criticism of "inconsistencies in formatting and completeness" prioritizes administrative compliance over intellectual contribution, revealing editorial focus on procedural correctness rather than scholarly merit.

Implications: This pattern suggests editorial decision-making based on institutional convenience and traditional hierarchies rather than research quality or significance.

Case 2: Research Square - Content Type Discrimination

Rejection Context: Manuscript rejected for being "not suitable for posting as a preprint" with reference to "editorial policies with respect to content type and screening."

Analysis: This rejection demonstrates:

1. Content Categorization Bias: The platform's determination that critical analysis of academic systems falls outside acceptable "content types" reveals institutional resistance to self-examination.
2. Scope Limitation Strategy: By defining acceptable content narrowly, platforms can exclude challenging or uncomfortable research while maintaining appearance of open access.
3. Policy Shield Defense: Reference to "editorial policies" without specific justification creates an unassailable defense against individual decisions while obscuring systemic bias patterns.
Case 3: PsyArXiv - Terms of Service Weaponization

Rejection Context: Multiple manuscripts withdrawn with justifications including "inappropriate content according to our terms of service" and "falls outside the scope of our preprint repository."

Analysis: This pattern reveals:

1. Scope Creep Exclusion: Systematic withdrawal of papers on academic publishing criticism suggests scope definitions designed to exclude institutional critique rather than maintain academic focus.
2. Terms of Service Ambiguity: Vague references to "inappropriate content" without specific violations create arbitrary enforcement mechanisms that can target any challenging research.
3. Mass Rejection Strategy: The systematic nature of these withdrawals (multiple papers, similar justifications) suggests coordinated institutional resistance rather than individual content assessment.

Broader Pattern Recognition: These cases collectively demonstrate how editorial gatekeeping operates through:

· Procedural Justification: Using administrative or policy violations to mask content-based discrimination
· Scope Manipulation: Defining acceptable content narrowly enough to exclude challenging research
· Authority Protection: Systematic exclusion of research that examines institutional practices
· Evidence Prevention: Preventing accumulation of systematic evidence of bias through individual, seemingly justified rejections
The Cumulative Effect

These rejection patterns create a systematic exclusion mechanism that:

1. Prevents Pattern Recognition: Individual rejections appear justified while collective patterns remain invisible
2. Discourages Critical Research: Researchers learn to avoid topics that challenge institutional practices
3. Maintains Status Quo: Existing power structures remain protected from systematic examination
4. Creates False Legitimacy: The appearance of objective editorial standards masks subjective institutional protection

This analysis reveals how contemporary editorial practices function as sophisticated gatekeeping mechanisms that maintain institutional authority while creating an appearance of objective scholarly standards.

Implications and Recommendations
The Fundamental Reform Imperative

The current academic publishing system has evolved into a mechanism that systematically rewards mediocrity while suppressing innovation. This situation demands fundamental structural reform rather than incremental improvement.^{11, 12}

Priority reforms should include:

1. Transparency Requirements: Mandatory disclosure of editorial correspondence and reviewer comments for all rejected manuscripts, requiring individual scientific accountability^24-26 while enabling systematic bias analysis.
2. Alternative Evaluation Metrics: Development of assessment criteria that prioritize intellectual contribution over institutional affiliation and methodological conformity.
3. Platform Neutrality: Recognition that research quality is independent of publication venue, with institutional policies that evaluate content rather than credentialing mechanisms.
The Role of Emerging Platforms

Preprint platforms and alternative publication venues increasingly serve as refuges for authentic scholarly discourse. These platforms should be supported and enhanced rather than marginalized by academic institutions.^{14, 15}

The future of scholarly communication may depend on platforms that prioritize intellectual honesty over institutional convenience, even if such platforms lack traditional quality control mechanisms.^{13, 17}

Conclusion

The peer review system, rather than ensuring quality in academic publishing, has become a sophisticated mechanism for manufacturing conformity while suppressing innovation. Top-tier journals, far from representing the pinnacle of scholarly achievement, increasingly serve as repositories for technically competent but intellectually vacuous research generated through AI-assisted production processes.

Meanwhile, privacy laws designed to protect individual researchers have evolved into institutional shields that prevent systematic analysis of editorial bias and reviewer misconduct. This creates an evidence-proof defense system that renders the peer review process immune to empirical criticism while maintaining its authority through legal protection rather than demonstrated effectiveness.

The resulting academic ecosystem systematically rewards mediocrity while marginalizing genuine innovation. Until this fundamental dynamic is addressed through structural reform rather than superficial modification, academic publishing will continue to serve institutional convenience rather than scholarly advancement.

The path forward requires recognition that authentic scholarship increasingly occurs outside traditional gatekeeping mechanisms. Preprint platforms, despite their lack of formal peer review^{27, 28}, may represent the future of honest scholarly communication precisely because they lack the institutional biases that compromise traditional publishing venues.

Only by abandoning the illusion that peer review guarantees quality can the academic community begin building publication systems that actually serve scholarly advancement rather than institutional authority.

Appendix

This article represents a critical examination of contemporary academic publishing practices based on systematic analysis of editorial patterns, publication trends, and institutional policies. The views expressed reflect concerns about structural problems in scholarly communication that merit serious consideration by the academic community.

A1 Related Reading

Liu, Yue, The Academic AI Backlash: Innovation vs. Integrity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com

Liu, Yue, Manuscript Rejection Based Solely on Divergent Perspectives: A Critique of Reviewer Consensus as Grounds for Academic Dismissal -- Unrefuted Arguments Retain Scholarly Value and Merit Consideration for Publication, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com

Yue Liu, The Reluctance to Criticize the Errors of the Majority: Authority, Conformity, and Academic Silence in Scholarly Discourse, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.2515.v1

Yue Liu, The Entrenched Problems of Scientific Progress: An Analysis of Institutional Resistance and Systemic Barriers to Innovation, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.2152.v1

Liu, Yue, The Untouchable Crisis: Academic Silence, Authority Conformity, and the Suppression of Critical Discourse in Modern Science, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com

Liu, Yue, The Paradox of Academic Publishing: Why Low-Quality Research Thrives While Disruptive Innovation Struggles, Qeios, Preprint, 2025, https://doi.org/10.32388/QD8GGF

Why Low-Quality Articles Are So Prevalent: An Academic System Under Strain

Why Low-Quality Articles Are So Prevalent

yueliusd

Aug 18

Related preprint:

Read full story

Liu, Yue, Self-Citation Versus External Citation in Academic Publishing: A Critical Analysis of Citation Reliability, Publication Biases, And Scientific Quality Assessment (August 14, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5392646 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5392646

Liu, Yue, Why Has Physics Come to a Standstill? The Case of Microwave Absorption Theory and the State of Scientific Progress, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com

Liu, Yue, The Hypothetical Elimination of Science and Nature Journals: Assessing Scientific Progress and Innovation 销毁Science和Nature期刊上的全部论文，对世界科技会带来什么样的影响？, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com

-----

Liu, Yue, Commentary: A Critical Review of Arguments Against Preprint, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com

Liu, Yue, Publication Outlets for Sharp Criticism of Academia: A Deep Analysis of Institutional Gatekeeping and Systemic Suppression, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com

Liu, Yue, Wu Wei Governance: A Philosophical Framework for Addressing the Academic Research Crisis and Institutional Gatekeeping, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com

-----

Yue Liu, Balancing Transparency and Data Protection in Academic Publishing: The Case of Editorial Correspondence Disclosure on Preprint Servers, Doi: 10.20944/preprints202508.1193.v3 Website: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202508.1193/v3

Yue Liu. Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.0015.v2, Supplementary Materials

Liu, Yue, Theoretical Primacy in Scientific Inquiry: A Critique of the Empirical Orthodoxy in Modern Research (August 05, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5379953 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5379953

Liu, Yue, The Misapplication of Statistical Methods in Liberal Arts: A Critical Analysis of Academic Publishing Bias Against Theoretical Research (August 01, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5376778 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5376778

Yue Liu, Why Are Research Findings Supported by Experimental Data with High Probability Often False? --Critical Analysis of the Replication Crisis and Statistical Bias in Scientific Literature, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, 10.20944/preprints202507.1953.v1

Liu, Yue, The Persistence of Intellectual Resistance: From Copernicus to Contemporary Science (August 20, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5399455 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5399455

----

2 Rejection Letters

2025年08月22日 17:49 (星期五)

Dear Yue,

thank you very much for your thoughtful message and for sharing the context behind your recent series of submissions. We truly value the commitment and long-standing perspective you bring, and we understand your wish to share your ideas steadily and openly.

At the same time, we would like to kindly reiterate that our platform strongly discourages multiple submissions in very close succession. This is not a reflection on the quality of your work, but rather a matter of ensuring that each article has the chance to receive the attention it deserves, and that the overall rhythm of publication on Qeios remains balanced. If your top priority is to post many works rapidly, there are indeed several other preprint servers that may be a better fit for that approach. That said, we would be very glad to continue hosting your contributions here, provided they align with our policies on pacing and posting.

In the meantime, we have also taken a look at your most recent submission. Unfortunately, this manuscript has not passed our pre-posting checks, and we are unable to proceed with its posting at this time.

Due to the high volume of submissions we receive every day, we regret that we are unable to provide more detailed feedback on this occasion. However, we can share that the main issue is that the commentary’s central argument appears to rely heavily on non-scholarly and non-academic sources (e.g. Wikipedia, Reddit, blogs, news articles, and self-citations to preprints and Substack posts), which undermines its academic rigor. In addition, several exaggerated claims are presented without engagement with the established scholarly literature, and the reference list shows inconsistencies in formatting and completeness.

You are, of course, free to submit this manuscript for consideration to any other journal or platform of your choice. Given the nature of the manuscript, however, we believe it might be better suited for formats such as a blog post or platforms like Medium.com or Substack, where thoughtful and timely analyses can reach a wide and engaged audience without the constraints of formal academic publishing. What do you think? :)

Thank you again so much for considering Qeios for your research, Yue.

Kindest regards,

Qeios Team

—

Qeios

9 Sydney Mews, SW3 6HW, London, UK

info@qeios.com

www.qeios.com

Follow at @qeios

Revisiting the Qeios Rejection of a Preprint on Wave Mechanics Theory for Microwave Absorption

The Gamification of Academic Publishing: How Artificial Limits Stifle Innovation and Critical Discourse

The Academic Publishing Hierarchy: A Commentary on Qeios' Rejection and the Suppression of Non-Mainstream Scholarship

From: yueliusd <yueliusd@163.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 17:56
To: Qeios <info@qeios.com>
Cc: "m.g.b.drew" <m.g.b.drew@reading.ac.uk>
Subject: Re:Re: Your latest submission :)

Dear Qeios Team,

Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful reminder and for the ongoing support you provide. Since 2017, I have published a series of papers challenging the prevailing microwave absorption theory—most in peer‑reviewed journals after much difficulty. These contributions already ensure that history will judge the arguments fairly, so I do not feel urgency for immediate recognition. At this point, preprints provide sufficient visibility and preservation, and formal peer‑review is no longer essential for that purpose.

Since retiring in 2018, my publishing is not driven by quotas or career needs, but by a desire to encourage a healthier academic culture. My recent writings reflect long personal experience confronting systemic issues in science—topics often left unspoken but deeply important. Each article addresses one such problem, and while they may appear in close succession, this reflects their interconnected nature. With this in mind, I hope you can understand my wish to share them steadily. I deeply value Qeios as a forum where these perspectives can be expressed openly.

With warm regards,
Yue

The Gamification of Academic Publishing: How Artificial Limits Stifle Innovation and Critical Discourse

The Academic Publishing Hierarchy: A Commentary on Qeios' Rejection and the Suppression of Non-Mainstream Scholarship

2025年08月22日 02:00 (星期五)

Dear Prof. Yue Liu,

Thank you for your recent preprint submission "The Untouchable Crisis: Academic Silence, Authority Conformity, and the Suppression of Critical Discourse in Modern Science" to Research Square. Unfortunately, our screeners have determined that the manuscript type or its content is not suitable for posting as a preprint on Research Square. Please note that this decision does not reflect the quality or importance of the work and is made on the basis of our editorial policies with respect to content type and screening.

If you have any questions or feedback, visit our Help Center or contact us.

We appreciate your interest in Research Square and wish you the best of luck with your manuscript.

Sincerely,

The Research Square Team
Research Square
A preprint platform that makes research communication faster, fairer, and more useful.

This email has been sent to yueliusd@163.com by Research Square.
Privacy policy
Contact us
Research Square Platform, LLC is a company registered in the United States under Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) 82-4431595 with its registered office at 601 West Main Street, Durham, NC, USA
© 2022 Research Square Platform, LLC. All rights reserved.

Title: The Untouchable Crisis: Academic Silence, Authority Conformity, and the Suppression of Critical Discourse in Modern Science

RSID: rs-7420855

2025年08月29日 19:05 (星期五)

Recent Activity

The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing: How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation

Hello LIU YUE,

Your submission The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing: How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation, submitted to PsyArXiv has not been accepted. Contributors with admin permissions may edit the preprint and resubmit, at which time it will return to a pending state and be reviewed by a moderator. The moderator has also provided a comment that is only visible to contributors of the preprint, and not to others:
Terms of service violation - This submission contains inappropriate content according to our terms of service.

Learn more about PsyArXiv or OSF.

Sincerely,
The PsyArXiv and OSF teams

2025年08月29日 21:21 (星期五)

“Terms of service violation - This submission contains inappropriate content according to our terms of service.”

My response:

In legal theory, there are two competing principles:

1. Legal Positivism (Rule of Law): Authorities are obligated to apply and enforce whatever statutes are on the books, regardless of their justice or wisdom. Under this view, a law remains binding until formally repealed or struck down by a competent legislature or court.
2. Natural Law (Higher Morality): No statute that requires or authorizes injustice or “crime” truly binds the conscience or can claim moral legitimacy. In extreme cases, officials may—and indeed must—refuse to execute manifestly unjust commands, even at personal risk, because an unjust law is not a true law.

Most modern legal systems strike a balance: public officers must enforce validly enacted laws, but they are also bound by constitutional or human-rights limits that override unjust statutes. Where a law itself violates fundamental rights, courts can declare it unconstitutional, and legislatures are urged to repeal it.

Applying this to editorial‐correspondence confidentiality:

· Fair, Accurate Reviews: If editors’ and reviewers’ reports are factually sound and unbiased, they contain no “private” error to conceal. Invoking privacy protections in that scenario mischaracterizes true transparency.
· Unintentional Errors in Reviews: If a review contains mistakes, then those who fear reputational harm cannot legitimately claim a broad “privacy right” over the substance of the critique without first acknowledging the error. Shielding one’s own error behind a privacy statute converts a mechanism intended to protect personal data into a tool of concealment.
· When Privacy Law Harms the Weak: If enforcing a data-protection provision systematically injures authors—by stifling critique, suppressing evidence of bias, or entrenching editorial power—then applying that provision perpetuates injustice. In such circumstances, the law that enabled the harm should be reconsidered or repealed.

In short:
– Public officials and platforms must apply valid laws, but not at the expense of fundamental fairness and justice.
– When a statute’s real-world effect is to protect powerful parties’ mistakes and to harm weaker parties, it ceases to serve the rule of law and should be amended or abolished.
– Editors and reviewers cannot hide behind privacy rules without first owning any substantive errors in their reports. Otherwise, the statute becomes a shield for injustice rather than a defender of legitimate privacy.

Yue Liu, Balancing Transparency and Data Protection in Academic Publishing: The Case of Editorial Correspondence Disclosure on Preprint Servers, Doi: 10.20944/preprints202508.1193.v2 Website: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202508.1193/v2

2025年08月28日 02:01 (星期四)

Dear LIU YUE,

A moderator has withdrawn your preprint "Manuscript Rejection Based Solely on Divergent Perspectives: A Critique of Reviewer Consensus as Grounds for Academic Dismissal" from PsyArXiv.
The preprint has been removed from PsyArXiv, but its metadata is still available: title of the withdrawn preprint, its contributor list, abstract, tags, and DOI. The moderator has provided the following justification: "The content appears to fall outside the scope of our preprint repository, which is primarily intended for contributions to scientific psychology.".