Someone wanted my NASPAA article removed from publication.
What happened when I published an article critical of the accrediting organization NASPAA? A five-month investigation into the integrity of my research. Here's what it uncovered.
For seven years, I have been asking questions about the governance and policies of NASPAA, an accrediting organization for graduate public policy and public administration programs. I have never succeeded in getting on-the-record answers to these questions.1
NASPAA was established by American public policy and public administration programs in the 1970s. In 2012, NASPAA declared itself to be a “global organization,” and also the global standard-setter for public policy education.
On January 21, 2025, the journal Administrative Theory & Praxis (ATP) published an article in which I restated some concerns about NASPAA. You can read the article here. I emphasized two points:
NASPAA has represented itself as a global organization and a global standard-setter for more than a decade. Over that period, it has not taken adequate steps to assure global representation in its governance and activities. (I call this “global inclusion.”) In 2024, when my article was written, NASPAA was still dominated by American institutions.
NASPAA invokes this questionable global status as it propagates accreditation standards that are seriously flawed. As I say in the article: “NASPAA does not require that accredited programs demonstrate a commitment to academic freedom, democracy, and other human rights. This omission makes it easier for NASPAA to accredit programs in authoritarian states like China.” This statement was not disputed during the investigation I am about to describe.
The complaint
ATP is published by Taylor & Francis (T&F). Soon after my article was published, an individual or institution filed a complaint with T&F. Complainants are given anonymity. I do not know exactly when the complaint was filed. In February, a T&F employee involved in this investigation began following me on social media. I have not seen the complaint.2
T&F is also publisher of the Journal of Public Affairs Education, the “official journal” of NASPAA. According to Wikipedia, T&F and NASPAA have had a contractual relationship since 2017. This relationship was not disclosed by T&F during the investigation. The relationship was acknowledged by T&F on July 17.
March 2025: A few questions
On March 11, I received an email from a T&F representative which said: “I have been investigating a complaint made against your recent paper ‘False Globalism.’ The nature of the complaint is concerned with inaccurate data, and in order to respond to the complainant, I need to check a few points with you.”
I was asked to provide documentation to support my statement about the extent of US representation on recent NASPAA conference committees. I provided documentation, and after a little back and forth about counting heads, heard nothing more about this question.
I was also asked to provide documentation to support my statement about NASPAA’s work on preparing a domestic DEI action plan. I provided documentation, and heard nothing more about this question.
I was asked to substantiate my statement that NASPAA had not produced an action plan for global inclusion comparable to its domestic DEI action plan. The T&F representative stated: “The complainant disputes this as a factual statement; but it’s hard to tell as there is not much if any information publicly available.” I replied that I was also unable to locate an action plan on global inclusion.
In a March 13 email, the T&F representative acknowledged “the point about the action plan . . . is open to interpretation, given the lack of a publicly available statement.” They asked whether I would “consider a minor change to wording here to state ‘It is unclear whether an action plan was adopted following the [2023] global position report’?” The representative emphasized that this would be “a minor correction.”
I agreed to revise the text so that it said no global inclusion action plan had been published. I did not believe that this revision was necessary. I offered it as a gesture of good faith. I was unaware of the complainant’s intentions.
In T&F’s March 11 email, I was also asked about this statement: “In 2024, U.S. institutions claimed sixteen of seventeen seats on COPRA, or ninety-four percent of votes.” COPRA is the Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation, which makes accreditation decisions for NASPAA.
In fact, there was an error in this statement, but it was not wholly my fault. When I looked at the NASPAA website in January 2024, it listed seventeen entries for COPRA because of a technical error on NASPAA’s part. The correct statement should be: “In 2024, U.S. institutions claimed thirteen of fourteen seats on COPRA, or ninety-three percent of votes.” I accepted this error on March 11.
I also told T&F on March 12: “I have never received complaints about the integrity of a journal article before, and I take such complaints very seriously. If other concerns have been raised by the complainant about this article, I would appreciate the opportunity to address them.”
May 2025: more questions, and lawyers
I heard nothing more from T&F for a long time after the March correspondence.
On May 27, however, I received another email from the T&F representative. This email said: “We received a further response from the complainant who stated that their position is unchanged. They continued with their request for a retraction of the article.”
The T&F representative explained that they had “consulted further with colleagues in our Ethics and Legal Teams, and our position is that we will not retract the article.” However, discussions with the complainant were ongoing, and another response from the complainant was expected “by the end of June.”
This email was surprising for two reasons. First, I learned that the complainant was seeking retraction of the article rather than correction of minor factual errors.3 Second, I learned that lawyers were involved, and apparently had been for some time.
I expressed my concern about the lack of transparency and procedural fairness in the investigation. I stated: “Given my new understanding of the situation, I retract my earlier agreement to make a revision regarding the non-existence of a NASPAA action plan. My position is that there is no such plan.”
I asked the editors of ATP to express an opinion about the manner in which the investigation was proceeding. An ATP editor replied on May 28: “Because of the involvement of Taylor & Francis’ legal team, [we] are advised not to comment on your article.”
It seemed prudent for me to get legal advice as well. Staff at an American civil liberties organization helped me find a lawyer.
On May 29, I received a further query from T&F, asking me to provide documentation regarding my statement about the extent of U.S. representation on NASPAA’s Policy Issues Committee. I provided documentation.
July 2025: Corrections, and conflict of interest
On July 1, the T&F official sent me an email to explain how the complaint would be resolved. The article would not be retracted. However:
T&F proposed a correction for my statement regarding the composition of COPRA.
T&F proposed a correction to my statement regarding the Policy Issues Committee, stating: “The 2025 Policy Issues Committee has one member with a non-US affiliation.”
T&F proposed a revision of my text, to say that no global inclusion action plan had been published.
On July 7, I replied to T&F:
I agreed to a correction regarding the composition of COPRA.
I refused to accept the proposed amendment regarding the Policy Issues Committee. My article was written in 2024 and Footnote 2 states the date on which committee data was collected. T&F was not proposing a correction. Rather, it was proposing a rejoinder that had the effect of putting NASPAA in a slightly more favorable light.
I refused to accept the proposed revision about action plans. We know what a NASPAA action plan looks like. I stand by my statement that there was no action plan for global inclusion at the time of writing.
I also made this statement to T&F: “Under [Committee on Publication Ethics] policy, all parties including publishers are obliged to disclose potential conflicts of interest and to avoid situations in which decisions might be compromised, or might reasonably be perceived as compromised, by potential conflicts. Taylor & Francis has a business relationship with NASPAA as publisher of its official journal. This conflict was not disclosed and is relevant to the adjudication of this complaint.”
The investigation is closed
On July 17, a more senior T&F representative responded to my email. The representative stated: “[W]e recognize that in this instance our relationship with NASPAA might lead to the perception of a conflict of interest.” The representative said that steps had been taken within T&F to assure impartiality during the investigation.
T&F withdrew its proposed amendments regarding the Policy Issues Committee and the existence of a global inclusion action plan.
T&F had also proposed one additional action to be completed before it would consider the investigation to be closed. I said that this condition was unjustified, as T&F had presented no evidence of misconduct on my part that warranted further remedial action. I asked for the investigation to be closed immediately.
On July 18, the senior T&F representative replied: “I can confirm that the investigation prompted by this complaint is now closed.”
The representative also confirmed that I was free to comment publicly on this investigation.
The final result
For me, this investigation was a prolonged, lonely, time-consuming, and costly experience.
What is the final result? The following footnote will be added to my statement about COPRA: “At the time that the author was collecting data for this article, NASPAA's website listed seventeen entries for COPRA membership. In fact, US institutions claimed 13 of 14 seats on COPRA at that time, or 93 percent of votes, not 94 percent as stated in the text.”
I had acknowledged that error on March 11. Readers can make their own judgment about its significance.
Update, August 6
Shortly after writing this post, I filed a complaint with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). I asked COPE to consider whether T&F had adequately complied with COPE’s conflict of interest policy. T&F is a member of COPE.
On August 5, COPE declined to accept my complaint. Although T&F is a member of COPE, the journal (ATP) is not. COPE will only accept complaints when the publisher and the journal are COPE members. This is so even when the concern relates only to the conduct of the publisher.
The end result? The author is the only player in the process who faces external accountability for compliance with COPE standards.
I first asked these questions at the Minnowbrook 50th anniversary conference in 2018. I posed them again in the concluding part of this 2019 article in Public Administration Review. I also raised them in conversations with NASPAA officers and staff between 2018 and 2023. I was director of a NASPAA member school and also a member of NASPAA’s South Asia subcommittee during some of this time. I raised these questions again in this March 2024 lecture at the University of Kansas, viewable on YouTube, and in this 2024 brief submitted to CHEA during NASPAA’s reaccreditation process. CHEA shared my brief with NASPAA, along with other public comments, but it did not share NASPAA’s response with me.
I state these facts solely for the purpose of describing the extent of my knowledge regarding the complaint.
These are the grounds on which an argument for retraction must be based, according to T&F.