A fistful of Stapels: Psych journal retracts five more from Dutch researcher, upping total to 25
Diederik Stapel’s CV continues to crumble, with five more retractions for the disgraced Dutch social scientist who admitted to fabricating data in his studies.
The latest articles to fall appeared in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, a Sage title, bringing Stapel’s total to 25 that we’re aware of so far:
The following five articles have been retracted from Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and the Editor and the publisher of the journal:
Avramova, Y.R., Stapel, D.A. & Lerouge, D. (2010). The influence of mood on attribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1360-1371. (Original DOI: 10.1177/0146167210381083)
Noordewier, M.K., & Stapel, D.A. (2010). Affects of the unexpected: When inconsistency feels good (or bad). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 642-654. (Original DOI: 10.1177/0146167209357746 )
Van den Bos, A., & Stapel, D.A. (2009). Why people stereotype affects how they stereotype: The differential influence of comprehension goals and self-enhancement goals on stereotyping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(1), 101-113 (Original DOI: 10.1177/0146167208325773)
Joly, J.F., Stapel, D.A., & Lindenberg, S.M. (2008). Silence and table manners: When environments activate norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1047-1056 (Original DOI: 10.1177/0146167208318401)
Stapel, D. A., & Spears, R. (1996). Event accessibility and context effects in causal inference: Judgment of a different order. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 979–992. (Original DOI: 10.1177/01461672962210001)
None of the papers was widely cited, receiving 0, 7, 4, 8 and 19 citations, respectively, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Of course, anyone who has been following this case — we’re guessing the whole field — knows the problems with Stapel’s data. But that doesn’t excuse the editors from offering an explanation, and we’re curious why they decided against doing so. After all, the journal is a member of COPE, which recommends explaining why papers were retracted. We’ve contacted the editor, and will update with anything we learn.
Hat tip: Neil Martin
Subscribe to comments with RSS.