A comment on "Fractionating Intelligence" and the peer review process

Richard J. Haier*, Sherif Karama, Roberto Colom, Rex Jung, Wendy Johnson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialpeer-review


Hampshire and colleagues used factor analyses and simulations to conclude that the g-factor is not a valid construct for general intelligence because it could be accounted for by at least two independent components defined by distinct brain networks. In our view, their results depend on a number of assumptions and subjective decisions that, at best, allow for different interpretations. We also had a unique role in the review process of their paper prior to its publication when we were invited to write a Preview. We detail that role here and describe how non-transparent editorial decision-making rejected our Preview and allowed publication despite our major concerns. The main purpose of this report is to invite Hampshire and colleagues to respond to our specific scientific concerns that aim to clarify their work and contribute a constructive discussion about the meaning of their findings. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)323-332
Number of pages10
Publication statusPublished - 2014


  • g-Factor
  • Intelligence
  • Factor analysis
  • Brain imaging
  • Cognitive testing
  • P-FIT

Cite this