Ron Weary

The citation problems are real and should be fixed. That is not the same as “the authors didn’t write it / they are frauds / retract.” What checks out: several refs are misattributed or point at the wrong paper (Zachar/Kendler given a Kawa & Giordano title; Yakushko in the wrong journal; DOIs that resolve elsewhere). That is negligent. A correction or an audit of the whole list is warranted. What does not check out from the public evidence: 1. The article is a real CPR paper (Hayes, Ciarrochi, Sahdra, Hofmann, Ong, Hernández; 10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102800), not a phantom. 2. These authors have been publishing the idionomic / process-based line for years. Dirty refs ≠ ghostwritten paper. 3. “All the arguments are nonsense” is asserted, not shown. “That’s not how ideas are transmitted / he assumed an error / little import” may be right about the eugenics→ANOVA story. It does not decide whether within-person modeling is useful, and it is a different charge from a bad DOI. 4. Retraction is for fabrication or findings that cannot stand. Unchecked bibliography is usually correction first. Intent to defraud has not been shown. Keep the standards tight: cite-check every source, don’t launder a methods disagreement into a fraud verdict.

All these narcissist-spotting guides are cute. Just become a psychopath. It’s way easier.

All in the balance