{"id":573996,"date":"2026-08-19T17:48:09","date_gmt":"2026-08-19T17:48:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/573996\/"},"modified":"2026-08-19T17:48:09","modified_gmt":"2026-08-19T17:48:09","slug":"a-new-zealand-journal-deleted-a-paper-for-potential-harm-to-maori-months-after-publishing-it-retraction-watch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/573996\/","title":{"rendered":"A New Zealand journal deleted a paper for potential harm to M\u0101ori months after publishing it \u2013 Retraction Watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

When Arna Mitchell submitted her article critiquing a proposal for different standards of practice for M\u0101ori and non-M\u0101ori clients in clinical psychology, she thought it would be too controversial to publish because it challenged views becoming influential among professional and academic circles.<\/p>\n

But the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists<\/a> (JNZCCP) had the paper peer-reviewed and published it<\/a> in August 2025. And then, 10 months later, they deleted the article, after deciding the work could perpetuate harm to M\u0101ori, the indigenous people of New Zealand, and that it conflicted with the college\u2019s values.<\/p>\n

The college defended the deletion by arguing the journal is not an independent, indexed academic journal. But the decision has caused members to quit the college and has drawn criticism from the field, including from a former editor of the journal.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI have not been shown how my ideas are wrong or inaccurate. I have not been shown how my ideas are not aligned with my professional ethics,\u201d Mitchell told Retraction Watch. \u201cThe ideas in my article challenged the dominant narrative in our psychology institutions and were politically and ideologically inconvenient for some of our professional leaders. In my opinion, those are reasons for more robust discussions, not censorship.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

In her article, Mitchell, a clinical psychologist in New Zealand of M\u0101ori descent, argued the draft codes of the New Zealand Psychologists Board would set different standards of care for M\u0101ori clients, including weakened protections in confidentiality, informed consent and autonomous decision-making. She believed the codes were shaped by a report<\/a> from the Working to End Racism and Oppression (WERO) research program \u2014 which she said used a methodology that couldn\u2019t support its conclusions and recommendations addressing systemic racism in the field.\u00a0<\/p>\n

According to Mitchell, the report\u2019s recommendations could result in M\u0101ori clients treated using cultural approaches rather than individual, evidence-based assessment, and assume the group is homogenous rather than diverse.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy argument was not against culturally responsive practice or the inclusion of M\u0101ori knowledge and practices where they are appropriate and supported,\u201d Mitchell said, adding that she questioned whether an approach is necessarily better for M\u0101ori simply because it is culturally derived. \u201cWe need evidence to establish whether interventions, regardless of how they are derived, are effective.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mitchell said she and the editors had open conversations before its publication about how the article \u201cwould be challenging for some people to read.\u201d In one exchange before publication, editor-in-chief Liesje Donkin told Mitchell \u201cI personally don\u2019t think we should shy away\u201d from controversy.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The journal published it in August 2025 as a viewpoint \u2014 a label Mitchell believes was later used to undermine the article and dismiss her opinions. In a letter published in the same issue as the article, Donkin and two associate editors, Paul Skirrow and Zara Mansoor, defended open debate<\/a>. It began with a M\u0101ori proverb: \u201cWhat is the food of chiefs? It is discussion, discussion, discussion.\u201d They wrote: \u201cacademic freedom and professional critique are not threats to our cohesion,\u201d and that \u201cif an article challenges your perspective, we encourage you to sit with that discomfort.\u201d<\/p>\n

The president of the NZCCP said they would not be commenting on our questions, the editors of the journal have not responded to our emails.<\/p>\n

After publication, several members of the college circulated a petition calling out \u201cserious concerns\u201d about Mitchell\u2019s views, and pushing for a vote of no confidence in a meeting at which Mitchell and several others were running for the college\u2019s executive. Mitchell said her critics believed her to be against m\u0101tauranga M\u0101ori \u2014 a term to describe the traditional knowledge system of the M\u0101ori people \u2014 \u201cwhich I actually support,\u201d Mitchell said. \u201c[They] mischaracterized what I had written.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Two responses to Mitchell\u2019s article also appeared in December in Psychology Aotearoa<\/a>, a journal published by the New Zealand Psychological Society. Both mentioned the article but did not cite it directly, with one describing Mitchell\u2019s viewpoint as work that \u201cfundamentally seeks to uphold the racist hierarchy within psychology.\u201d A representative of the society declined to comment on the responses or the group\u2019s involvement in the removal of the article.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cPsychologists on social media were telling psychologists to de-platform me,\u201d Mitchell said. \u201cSo I am guessing they didn\u2019t cite my article as a way of de-platforming it.\u201d But regarding the critiques themselves: \u201cI kind of saw that as a normal process,\u201d she said. \u201cEveryone is entitled to their perspective,\u201d though she said the ad hominem attacks and mischaracterizations of her arguments were inappropriate.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A few weeks later, Mitchell received an email from Donkin informing her of corrections needed to the article. After a back and forth, Donkin and Skirrow issued a correction<\/a> in September addressing definitions and facts about the report that Mitchell was criticizing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In an email to members announcing the corrections, the editors said they wanted to \u201cpersonally apologise for some significant errors\u201d included in the article, and published the correction after \u201ca thorough internal review, as well as significant consultation with a number of legal and professional experts.\u201d The editors also apologized to the team behind the WERO report and said they would take \u201cfurther steps to address [the article\u2019s] impact.\u201d The editors cited their adherence to the COPE guidelines in the correction.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Donkin and Skirrow have not responded to requests for comment.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Mitchell sensed the correction wasn\u2019t the end of the story. The wording implied the NZCCP was \u201cstill trying to make up for what [they\u2019d] done,\u201d she said. \u201cSo that indicated they were still doing something in the background.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Eight months later, on the morning of June 18, Donkin emailed Mitchell to say NZCCP\u2019s council had decided to take the article down \u201cafter ongoing discussion and careful consideration,\u201d saying that retaining the article \u201ccould perpetuate harm to M\u0101ori.\u201d Donkin wrote that the NZCCP remains \u201ccommitted to open and rigorous dialogue within psychological science and practice,\u201d but that \u201csuch dialogue must occur in ways consistent with our values.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cA notice to our readership regarding the removal will be circulated later today, and I wanted to ensure you were aware before that goes out,\u201d she wrote to Mitchell.\u00a0<\/p>\n

About three hours later, the organization\u2019s membership was informed about the removal via email from the editors<\/a>. \u201cWe apologise for harm that this article has caused and are working to remedy this,\u201d the editors wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Mitchell asked for minutes from the council meeting where she believes the decision was made, to understand why her article was removed, but has not received them.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThey could have communicated with me when the decision was made, given me an opportunity to kind of explain why I don\u2019t think what I\u2019ve written is actually against their values,\u201d Mitchell said. \u201cBut I only wrote it because I want M\u0101ori to receive high quality care.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one has communicated with me about why my ideas are not allowable,\u201d Mitchell said.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t the first time we\u2019ve reported on journals removing articles out of concern of harm. In 2023, researchers at the University of Minnesota requested their commentary <\/a>on structural racism be retracted over misleading information. A few years earlier,<\/a> Brown University pulled a press release about a study on transgender teens after public backlash. The journal also published a revised<\/a> version of the article and a lengthy explanation of the changes, emphasizing the study was hypothesis generating rather than proof of rapid onset gender dysphoria.<\/p>\n

COPE guidelines<\/a> state a retraction notice should be freely accessible to all readers and should link to the retracted article. Retraction with removal of an article is a \u201crare\u201d case when an article \u201cviolates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or could have a serious health risk to the general public or the environment,\u201d the guidelines state. In these circumstances, the notice \u201cshould clearly state why the content of the article has been removed.\u201d There is no retraction notice on the journal\u2019s website, and the article is no longer accessible. It was also removed from third-party platform Zenodo in late July, where it had accumulated more than 9,000 views.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In a statement to media at the time, the NZCCP executive said the journal \u201cis not an independent, indexed academic journal, and editorial decisions must be considered within the context of the College\u2019s governance, values, and constitutional commitments.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

The journal had always been presented as a scientific journal, said Helen Buckland-Wright, a clinical psychologist and former member of the NZCCP who also ran for an executive position alongside Mitchell. If it was a magazine, she said, \u201cwhy have a peer review? Why have editors who are academics and go through an academic process?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cTo my mind, I think that is a rebranding of what the journal has been traditionally understood to be.\u201d<\/p>\n

Buckland-Wright said she quit the college last August. She also said many other members, including other distinguished psychologists and some founding members, quit in protest of the article\u2019s removal. Others expressed their opinion about the removal online\u2014including Richard Dawkins on X<\/a>, calling the removal \u201cutterly contemptible.\u201d Kumari Valentine, a former editor of the journal for 11 years, wrote on Substack<\/a> that professional journals are \u201cnot merely vehicles for organisational messaging,\u201d but exist to \u201cfacilitate dialogue, debate, scholarship, and critical reflection,\u201d she wrote, in her article titled \u2018NZCCP Sets a Precedent of Censorship.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI worry that when a M\u0101ori author\u2019s contribution is removed from the scholarly record because it is considered inconsistent with organisational values, we risk sending a message that some M\u0101ori voices are welcome while others are not,\u201d Valentine wrote on Substack.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf it was so egregious, I think they should have followed the COPE guidelines,\u201d Buckland-Wright said. \u201cPeople should be permitted to make their own minds up, I think it\u2019s robbing people of the opportunity to do their own thinking about it, whether they agree with it or not.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Mitchell said she\u2019s received a huge amount of support from M\u0101ori individuals, as well as P\u0101keh\u0101 \u2014 non-M\u0101ori New Zealanders. \u201cI was worried that I would be alienating people, but it seems like the group I\u2019m alienating is a very select group working in particular areas, who have a lot of institutional power and sway.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Mitchell is now seeking to publish her article elsewhere.<\/p>\n

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a\u00a0tax-deductible contribution to support our work<\/a>, follow us\u00a0on X<\/a> or Bluesky<\/a>, like us\u00a0on Facebook<\/a>, follow us on LinkedIn<\/a>, add us to your\u00a0RSS reader<\/a>, or subscribe to our\u00a0daily digest<\/a>. If you find a retraction that\u2019s\u00a0not in our database<\/a>, you can\u00a0let us know here<\/a>. For comments or feedback, email us at\u00a0[email\u00a0protected]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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

\t