Peer-reviewed article by Māori author removed because it wasn’t in line with organisation’s values

Friday, 26 June 2026

A New Zealand psychology journal has ignited controversy by completely removing a peer-reviewed article by Māori clinical psychologist Dr Arna Mitchell months after its 2025 publication.

The removed article disputed a report claiming racism in the field and challenged the idea that indigenous ways of knowing should hold equal weight to Western scientific models in training.

The college justified the removal based on organisational values, sparking immediate international and local criticism from academics who label the move as censorship.

Defenders of the decision argue the paper lacked rigorous evidence, describing it as an opinion piece that failed to meet scholarly standards and ignored key indigenous psychology research.

A decision by a New Zealand psychology journal to remove a peer-reviewed article from its journal has exposed deep divisions within the profession over science, mātauranga Māori, racism and the boundaries of scholarly debate.

The article, written by Māori clinical psychologist Dr Arna Mitchell, was published in the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP) after undergoing peer review.

Months later, it was removed.

The college, in its newsletter, told members the article’s continued publication was inconsistent with its values.

Published in 2025, Mitchell’s article disputed conclusions of a report that said racism and oppression were pervasive across New Zealand psychology and argued that modern science was primarily rooted in European colonial traditions and derived its authority from historical power structures.

The removal of the article has prompted criticism from some psychologists, who argue the move raises questions about academic debate and the independence of professional journals.

Removal or censorship?

Some psychologists say the issue is not whether Mitchell’s arguments are correct.

Instead, they argue the profession should be able to openly debate ideas.

Dr Kumari Valentine, clinical psychologist and a former editor of the journal, said professional journals were supposed to contain disagreement.

“My concern is not that people disagree,” Valentine told Stuff.

“My concern is the removal of a published article after it had already passed editorial and review processes.”

Valentine said it was the first case she had encountered in New Zealand of a peer-reviewed article being removed for reasons other than fraud, plagiarism, major error or misconduct.

She said the precedent matters because future authors, students, and practitioners may wonder whether certain topics are safe to discuss within professional forums.

“[Retractions] should not become a mechanism for resolving disagreements about ideas. Retraction is not the same as censorship or removal. Typically when an article is retracted, the record remains with an editorial note or watermark.”

Valentine, who said she didn’t have a view on Mitchell’s article, believed that controversial claims should be met with responses, critiques and further scholarship rather than removal.

“Psychology advances through evidence, critique, and discussion. When controversial arguments are removed rather than debated, we lose opportunities to test ideas and strengthen our profession.”

Clinical neuropsychologist Dr Helen Buckland-Wright expressed concerns about the process used to remove a paper that had already passed peer review and editorial scrutiny.

Buckland-Wright said the college had justified the removal on the basis that the article no longer aligned with its organisational values, which she viewed as a value-based or ideological judgement rather than a scientific one.

“Her work should be treated like any other article that has gone through that process,” she said.

“NZCCP has acted contrary to the guidelines for ethical and responsible scientific publishing which should concern everyone.”

The controversy has gone international. Other academics to question the removal include philosophy professor Brandon Warmke from the United States. He said the move raised concerns about whether differing viewpoints were being given adequate space within scholarly discourse.

And Dr Camilo Ortiz, a psychology professor at Long Island University in New York, described it as a form of censorship.

“You're not a scientist if you censor data because it conflicts with your ‘organizational values’,” he posted on X.

Back in New Zealand, Stephanie Martin from the Free Speech Union said scholarly journals should be places where ideas are tested, not channels for value signalling.

“There is a long-standing difference between disagreeing with a published paper and removing it. Removal tells every clinician reading the journal that some questions, and topics, are now closed to discussion.

“A profession committed to genuine partnership should be able to tolerate disagreement among Māori scholars, rather than treat a single position as a unanimous Māori view,” said Martin.

What’s the article about?

Mitchell’s article was a critique of a report by Working to End Racism and Oppression (Wero), a group of psychologists and researchers examining racism and cultural safety within New Zealand psychology.

Wero’s report argued psychology remains heavily influenced by Euro-centric perspectives, and that Māori, Pacific, Asian and other minority groups continue to experience racism and exclusion within the discipline.

The report said psychology often treats Western scientific knowledge as culturally neutral while marginalising indigenous and non-Western ways of knowing.

It called for greater integration of Māori, indigenous and non-Western perspectives into psychology education, training and practice.

Mitchell challenged both Wero's evidence and disagreed that tribal “ways of knowing should be given equal weight to scientific ways of knowing in the training and practice of psychologists in New Zealand”.

She also criticised the report’s characterisation of science as a product of “European colonialism”.

Mitchell argued psychology should continue to be grounded in the scientist-practitioner model - the long-standing framework that emphasises evidence-based practice and scientific testing.

She said while cultural perspectives have a place in psychology, scientific evidence must remain central to the profession.

‘Opinion piece’

The controversy has exposed divisions within the profession with some arguing the real issue is whether Mitchell’s paper should have been published at all.

Stuff spoke to two senior psychology academics from New Zealand universities who said they were surprised it had passed peer review and been published in the first place.

One of them, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to media, described the paper as an “opinion piece” rather than a rigorous scholarly analysis.

They argued the article - which complained that Wero’s report lacked evidence - failed to meet the evidential standards it demanded of others.

'When I read [Mitchell’s] article, there’s very little evidence and the evidence that is provided is dated, it’s narrow, and I do not see references I would expect to see.“

The academic said the paper relied on a narrow range of sources and contained claims that would likely struggle to pass review in a more rigorous academic journal.

They also rejected suggestions that Mitchell being Māori automatically made her an authority on indigenous psychology.

They argued expertise in clinical psychology and expertise in Indigenous psychology were not necessarily the same thing.

Psychologists call for answers

Buckland-Wright said NZCCP had yet to publicly explain why the article was considered harmful to Māori, beyond stating that it conflicted with the organisation's values.

“As far as I am aware, there has been no response from NZCCP, despite many of its members contacting the college to seek an explanation for the decision,” she said.

She believes the article’s removal had prompted broader concerns about the role of the college within the profession.

“What I would like to see now is psychologists no longer being required to maintain NZCCP membership for Crown and other contracts, including those with ACC, Corrections, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health so they are not compelled to belong to an organisation that, in my view, has not followed accepted guidelines for ethical scientific publishing,” she said.

New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists and Wero have not provided any comments.