The Keepers: The stunning illumination of a cover up of child sexual abuse and institutional betrayal

A bibliometric analysis of the recovered memory controversy in the 21st century

“…Previous analyses highlighted that this controversy is not over in the field (Patihis & Pendergrast, 2018a;. This bibliometric analysis provides evidence that these topics are still the subject of research and discussions, with both proponents of repressed memories (e.g., Brand, Collins, & McEwen, 2018;Freyd et al, 2007) and opponents (e.g., Loftus & Davis, 2006;Lynn et al, 2014;Lynn et al, 2018) When looking at the four most cited papers, we see that three of them are reviews and one is a prospective study. This is quite logical because reviews are aimed at highlighting the state-of-the-art knowledge within a dedicated topic using a compilation of related studies.…”

“…Previous analyses highlighted that this controversy is not over in the field (Patihis & Pendergrast, ; Patihis, Ho, et al, ). This bibliometric analysis provides evidence that these topics are still the subject of research and discussions, with both proponents of repressed memories (e.g., Brand, Collins, & McEwen, ; Freyd et al, ) and opponents (e.g., Loftus & Davis, ; Lynn et al, ; Lynn et al, ) having continued to publish on these issues between 2001 and 2018. Although the quantity of articles published each year has known a peak during the period 2003–2007, the volume diminished but remained stable between 2009 and 2017, before a sudden increase of 16 publications in 2018.…”

“…The papers from the 21st century dealing with repressed and/or recovered memories were published from 2001 (Bornstein & Muller, ; Cannell, Hudson, & Pope, ; Coleman, Stevens, & Reeder, ; Dale, ; Davis, Loftus, & Follette, ; DelMonte, ; Esterson, ; Kaplan & Manicavasagar, ; Lalonde, Hudson, Gigante, & Pope, ; McNally, ; McNally et al, ; Pettifor, Crozier, & Chew, ; Porter, Birt, Yuille, & Hervé, ; Sadoff, ) up to 2018 (Brand et al, ; Brand, Collins, & McEwen, ; Chiu, , ; Dodier & Tomas, ; Efrati et al, ; Goodman, Gonzalves, & Wolpe, ; Loftus & Teitcher, ; Lynn, Merckelbach, & Polizzi, ; Merckelbach & Patihis, ; Page & Morrison, ; Patihis, Ho, Loftus, & Herrera, ; Patihis & Pendergrast, , ; Patihis & Place, ; Shaw & Vredeveldt, ).…”

“…Between 1992 and 2000, the average number of citations of the 300 articles was 19.55 (SD = 55.85; Median 4) and ranked from 0 to 719 citations, with 11 articles (3.67%) cited between 121 and 719 times, 11 articles (3.67%) cited between 54 and 89 times, 89 articles (29.67%) cited between 10 and 49 times, and 189 (63.00%) articles cited between zero and nine times, including 74 articles (24.67%) that were never cited Crozier, & Chew, 2001;Porter, Birt, Yuille, & Hervé, 2001;Sadoff, 2001). up to 2018Brand, Collins, & McEwen, 2018;Chiu, 2018aChiu, , 2018bDodier & Tomas, 2018;Efrati et al, 2018;Goodman, Gonzalves, & Wolpe, 2018;Loftus & Teitcher, 2018;Lynn, Merckelbach, & Polizzi, 2018;Merckelbach & Patihis, 2018;Page & Morrison, 2018;Patihis, Ho, Loftus, & Herrera, 2018;Patihis & Pendergrast, 2018a, 2018bPatihis & Place, 2018;Shaw & Vredeveldt, 2018).As reported in Table2and depicted in Figure1, the most productive years for publications were2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2018, which represented the publication dates of 74 (51.03%) articles published between 2001 and 2018. Interestingly, the second most productive year for publications was 2018, although the dataTABLE 2 Number (and %) of articles related to repressed/recovered memories per year between 2001 and 2018, according to Web of Science and Google Scholar…”

Tilting at Windmills: Why Attacks on Repression Are Misguided

“…“Repressed memory” or “repressed memories” were represented as keywords on only about 17% of the 145 articles reviewed by Dodier. An inspection of the articles cited as examples of those sympathetic to repression revealed that none in fact endorsed an unconscious version of the process or approved of exhuming forgotten memories but instead discussed a variety of mechanisms that could underlie forgetting (Brand, Collins, & McEwen, 2018; Brewin, 2007; Dalenberg et al, 2012; Freyd, DePrince, & Gleaves, 2007; Williams, 1994). There were substantially more publications by repression skeptics than by those who were supposedly sympathetic to repression.…”