{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,9]],"date-time":"2026-06-09T00:02:20Z","timestamp":1780963340940,"version":"3.54.1"},"reference-count":40,"publisher":"Elsevier BV","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,1]],"date-time":"2026-08-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1785542400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/tdm\/userlicense\/1.0\/"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,1]],"date-time":"2026-08-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1785542400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/legal\/tdmrep-license"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,1]],"date-time":"2026-08-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1785542400000},"content-version":"stm-asf","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.15223\/policy-017"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,1]],"date-time":"2026-08-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1785542400000},"content-version":"stm-asf","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.15223\/policy-037"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,1]],"date-time":"2026-08-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1785542400000},"content-version":"stm-asf","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.15223\/policy-012"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,1]],"date-time":"2026-08-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1785542400000},"content-version":"stm-asf","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.15223\/policy-029"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,1]],"date-time":"2026-08-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1785542400000},"content-version":"stm-asf","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.15223\/policy-004"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["elsevier.com","sciencedirect.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Current Opinion in Psychology"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]},"DOI":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,14]],"date-time":"2026-05-14T13:04:39Z","timestamp":1778763879000},"page":"102322","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/elsevier_cm_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"special_numbering":"C","title":["Procedural justice as social justice: Why psychologists must confront due process failures"],"prefix":"10.1016","volume":"70","author":[{"given":"William","family":"O\u2019Donohue","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"78","reference":[{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib1","series-title":"The screwtape letters","author":"Lewis","year":"2013"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1468-2850.2012.01269.x","article-title":"Clinical psychologists in the 2010s: fifty years of the APA Division of Clinical Psychology","volume":"19","author":"Norcross","year":"2012","journal-title":"Clin Psychol Sci Pract"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"139","DOI":"10.1177\/01454455860102001","article-title":"The social impact of assertiveness: research findings and clinical implications","volume":"10","author":"Delamater","year":"1986","journal-title":"Behav Modif"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"743","DOI":"10.1111\/0022-4537.00239","article-title":"Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women","volume":"57","author":"Rudman","year":"2001","journal-title":"J Soc Issues"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib5","series-title":"Hamdi v Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 507","year":"2004"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib6","volume":"vol. 43","author":"Hamburger","year":"2014"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"275","DOI":"10.1080\/10508422.2019.1679632","article-title":"Criticisms of the ethical principles for psychologists and the code of conduct","volume":"30","author":"O\u2019Donohue","year":"2020","journal-title":"Ethics Behav"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.4102\/hsag.v25i0.1384","article-title":"Psychologists\u2019 experience of a malpractice complaint: their relationship with and processes at the regulator","volume":"25","author":"Kirkcaldy","year":"2020","journal-title":"Health SA Gesondheid"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"426","DOI":"10.1037\/0735-7028.36.4.426","article-title":"Licensing board complaints: minimizing the impact on the psychologist\u2019s defense and clinical practice","volume":"36","author":"Thomas","year":"2005","journal-title":"Prof Psychol Res Pract"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"341","DOI":"10.1037\/0735-7028.32.4.341","article-title":"The question of psychologists\u2019 maltreatment by state licensing boards: overcoming denial and seeking remedies","volume":"32","author":"Williams","year":"2001","journal-title":"Prof Psychol Res Pract"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib11","series-title":"Due process in the administrative state","author":"Mashaw","year":"1985"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib12","series-title":"The law of peoples","author":"Rawls","year":"1999"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1177\/21677026231159564","article-title":"Accusation is not proof: procedural justice in psychology","volume":"11","author":"O\u2019Donohue","year":"2023","journal-title":"Clin Psychol Sci"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib14","series-title":"Understanding licensing board disciplinary procedures","author":"Bricklin","year":"2003"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib15","first-page":"943","article-title":"Preponderance, plus: the procedure due to professional licensees in state revocation hearings","volume":"52","author":"Murphy","year":"2020","journal-title":"Conn Law Rev"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib16a","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"199","DOI":"10.1037\/a0031757","article-title":"Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research","volume":"98","author":"Colquitt","year":"2013","journal-title":"J Appl Psychol"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib16b","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"349","DOI":"10.1207\/S15327957PSPR0704_07","article-title":"The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior","volume":"7","author":"Tyler","year":"2003","journal-title":"Pers Soc Psychol Rev"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1300","DOI":"10.18060\/25190","article-title":"\u201cDon\u2019t shame me; walk with me\u201d: the impact of sanctions for social work licensing violations","volume":"21","author":"Barsky","year":"2021","journal-title":"Adv Soc Work"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib18","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"544","DOI":"10.1080\/10508422.2024.2421312","article-title":"How do healthcare professionals experience being subject to complaint? A meta-synthesis of reported psychosocial impacts","volume":"35","author":"Hogben","year":"2025","journal-title":"Ethics Behav"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib19","series-title":"Foundation for individual rights and expression","year":"2025"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib20","first-page":"85","article-title":"University tribunals and the erosion of due process","volume":"84","author":"Gertner","year":"2021","journal-title":"Law Contemp Probl"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"215","DOI":"10.1080\/00221546.2022.2082784","article-title":"Gender equity and due process in campus sexual assault adjudication","volume":"94","author":"Porter","year":"2023","journal-title":"J High Educ"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib22","first-page":"1","article-title":"Do the proposed title IX regulations protect or undermine due process for accused students?","volume":"87","author":"Anderson","year":"2019","journal-title":"Fordham Law Rev"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib23","first-page":"701","article-title":"Saving title IX: designing more equitable and efficient investigation procedures","volume":"117","author":"Ellman-Golan","year":"2017","journal-title":"Mich Law Rev"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib24","series-title":"Beware diminishing due process","author":"Funk","year":"2024"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib25","series-title":"Title IX coordinators\u2019 experiences with due process obligations in campus adjudication","author":"Knautz","year":"2023"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib26","series-title":"Unwanted advances: sexual paranoia comes to campus","author":"Kipnis","year":"2017"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib27","series-title":"Lessons in academic freedom as lived experience","author":"Gottfredson","year":"2010"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib28","first-page":"33","article-title":"Professional boards and vague standards in health care regulation","volume":"12","author":"Dyer","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Regul Ethic"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib29","first-page":"1","article-title":"Administrative adjudication and structural bias","volume":"38","author":"Parrillo","year":"2021","journal-title":"Yale J Regul"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib30","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"170","DOI":"10.1037\/0735-7028.35.2.170","article-title":"Psychology licensing board disciplinary actions: the realities","volume":"35","author":"Van Horne","year":"2004","journal-title":"Prof Psychol Res Pract"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib31","first-page":"214","article-title":"Accountability and employee due process in federal healthcare systems","volume":"36","author":"Moran","year":"2019","journal-title":"Fed Pract"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib32","series-title":"VA personnel accountability: actions needed to improve processes (GAO\u201318\u2013137)","year":"2018"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib33","series-title":"VA handbook 0700: administrative investigation boards and factfindings","year":"2021"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib34","series-title":"Adverse actions: a compilation of articles","year":"2016"},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib36","unstructured":"This article argues that accusations are often treated as evidence rather than as claims that require rigorous scrutiny, creating epistemic and moral hazards within psychology. The authors outline a comprehensive framework for procedural justice, emphasizing the presumption of innocence, clear evidence standards, and fair adjudication procedures. They review common procedural deficiencies in institutional complaint systems that affect psychologists. The paper ultimately calls for reforms that better safeguard against error, bias, and misuse of administrative processes."},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib37","unstructured":"Hogben and Robertson (2025) present a meta-synthesis of studies examining how healthcare professionals experience, psychologically and socially, being the subject of a complaint. Across the reviewed literature, clinicians consistently report significant distress\u2014including anxiety, shame, fear, and a sense of professional threat\u2014alongside disruptions to identity, confidence, and workplace functioning. The authors conclude that complaint systems often unintentionally harm professionals and argue for procedural reforms and stronger institutional support structures to mitigate these adverse effects."},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib38","unstructured":"This FIRE report evaluates due process protections at major U.S. universities, scoring policies on criteria such as notice, impartiality, access to evidence, and the right to a hearing. The findings show that most institutions fail to guarantee even minimal procedural safeguards for accused students, particularly in sexual misconduct cases. FIRE highlights widespread problems, including single-investigator models, vague violations, and restrictions on cross-examination. The report concludes that these deficiencies undermine fairness and contribute to inconsistent, politically influenced adjudications."},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib39","unstructured":"Porter (2023) analyzes how campus sexual-assault adjudication systems attempt to balance gender-equity commitments with due-process requirements. The article argues that procedural deficiencies\u2014such as inadequate notice, limited access to evidence, and inconsistent standards\u2014risk undermining both fairness to the accused and the legitimacy of outcomes for complainants. Porter concludes that genuine gender equity cannot be achieved without strengthening due process protections, improving investigative rigor, and ensuring transparent, rights-respecting procedures."},{"key":"10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322_bib40","unstructured":"Gottfredson examines what academic freedom is, what protects it, and what one should do when a university violates it. She argues that these questions are rarely considered, leaving academics vulnerable to encroachments on free and open inquiry. She uses a case study from 1989 to 1994, and examines how such violations emerge, the common pretexts used to justify them, and the conditions required to halt and reverse them. Her goal is to help scholars recognize threats to academic freedom and better safeguard it in everyday academic life. She outlines the social mechanisms, both inside and outside academia, that selectively burden and suppress unpopular research, and concludes that freedom, like free speech more broadly, entails maintenance costs, is not self-enforcing, is sometimes invoked to suppress dissent, is often violated by institutions, and is infrequently defended by academics themselves. She concludes it does not require heroic action; it can be sustained if scholars consistently engage in small, collective acts of support."}],"container-title":["Current Opinion in Psychology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.elsevier.com\/content\/article\/PII:S2352250X26000606?httpAccept=text\/xml","content-type":"text\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/api.elsevier.com\/content\/article\/PII:S2352250X26000606?httpAccept=text\/plain","content-type":"text\/plain","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,8]],"date-time":"2026-06-08T23:41:19Z","timestamp":1780962079000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/linkinghub.elsevier.com\/retrieve\/pii\/S2352250X26000606"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]},"references-count":40,"alternative-id":["S2352250X26000606"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322","relation":{},"ISSN":["2352-250X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2352-250X","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]},"assertion":[{"value":"Elsevier","name":"publisher","label":"This article is maintained by"},{"value":"Procedural justice as social justice: Why psychologists must confront due process failures","name":"articletitle","label":"Article Title"},{"value":"Current Opinion in Psychology","name":"journaltitle","label":"Journal Title"},{"value":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.copsyc.2026.102322","name":"articlelink","label":"CrossRef DOI link to publisher maintained version"},{"value":"article","name":"content_type","label":"Content Type"},{"value":"\u00a9 2026 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.","name":"copyright","label":"Copyright"}],"article-number":"102322"}}