Recently, members of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP) received an email informing them a published article (He Wero Ano: Don’t Just Tell Me, Show Me How Science and Psychology Are Racist in New Zealand, by A. Mitchell) had been removed from the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists.
This article had been submitted in 2024 and had been peer reviewed and then published later in 2025.
The reason given for the removal was not research fraud, plagiarism, ethical misconduct or factual error.
Rather, the NZCCP council determined that retaining the article was inconsistent with the values of the college and could perpetuate harm to Māori.
As a former editor of this journal for 11 years, I have no wish to debate the merits of the article itself. Instead, I want to reflect on what principles might govern the removal of an article, offer my opinion about the purpose of a professional journal, the implications of retraction, and discuss the precedent this might set, both in New Zealand and internationally.
Professional journals exist to facilitate dialogue, debate, scholarship and critical reflection. They are not merely vehicles for organisational messaging. A healthy profession requires spaces where ideas can be proposed, challenged, refined and sometimes rejected.
Publication does not imply endorsement. It signifies that an idea has entered the professional conversation.
Does a professional publication still retain its status when it can only portray certain values?
The Journal of the NZCCP is the only journal specific to clinical psychologists in New Zealand and will thus be assumed to be following robust processes.
What does the removal of an article, because of the values of the organisation, show to the public and say about clinical psychology?
Historically, articles have been retracted for reasons such as fabrication or falsification of data; plagiarism; serious methodological flaws discovered after publication; ethical breaches or legal concerns.
If a published article causes concern, there are alternatives to removal, such as commissioning responses, publishing rebuttals or inviting dialogue.
These approaches expose ideas to scrutiny rather than erasing them from view. The distinction matters because scholarship advances through contestation, discussion, data where relevant, replication or replication attempts, sharing of different opinions and insights.
Removal of an article is typically because of scientific misconduct or similar issues noted above. Instead, the rationale is that the article was inconsistent with organisational values and could cause harm. I could find no other examples in New Zealand of a similar instance.
Whether one agrees with that judgement by the NZCCP or not, it represents a different basis for removal than those traditionally used in academic publishing.
This raises important questions. What threshold of harm justifies removal? Who determines that threshold? What protections exist against future misuse of such powers and could the same principle be applied to other controversial topics?
One aspect of this situation that I find particularly difficult is the author herself is Māori. The public explanation for the article’s removal is that retaining it could perpetuate harm to Māori.
I do not dismiss that concern. Harm matters. At the same time, I find myself wondering what it means when a published article written by a Māori author is removed in the name of protecting Māori.
Māori are not a monolith in the same way that none of us, identifying as members of a culture, consider that culture having a single voice. As with any community, there is diversity of thought, experience, political perspective, and scholarly opinion.
If our commitment is to elevating Māori voices, what do we do when Māori voices disagree with one another? Which voices are amplified, and which are excluded?
These are not comfortable questions, but they are important ones.
I worry that when a Māori author’s contribution is removed from the scholarly record because it is considered inconsistent with organisational values, we risk sending a message that some Māori voices are welcome while others are not.
One of the foundations of credible publishing is editorial independence. Editors are entrusted with making publication decisions through transparent processes. When governing bodies intervene in published content or editors request the input of governing bodies, questions inevitably arise about independence and the role of the editor.
Professional organisations are values-driven. Values matter. Commitments to Te Tiriti, equity, inclusion and cultural safety matter, of course.
At the same time, scholarship also depends on the ability to critically examine assumptions, including assumptions that are widely held.
The challenge is not choosing between values and inquiry. The challenge is maintaining both.
• Kumari Valentine is a Dunedin clinical psychologist.
