About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

And then there were 28: Two more retractions for Diederik Stapel

with one comment

Achtentwintig.

That’s 28 in Dutch, and is the number of retractions so far racked up by Diederik Stapel, according to our count.

The latest two to come to our attention are in the British Journal of Social Psychology, where Stapel has already had a retraction.

Here’s one notice:

The following article from British Journal of Social Psychology, “Behavioural effects of automatic interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison” by Ernestine H. Gordijn and Diederik A. Stapel, published December 2006, has been retracted by agreement between the co-author, the journal Editors in Chief, John Dixon and Jolanda Jetten and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed following the results of an investigation into the work of Diederik A. Stapel (https://www.commissielevelt.nl/). The Levelt Committee has determined that this article contained data that was fabricated as supplied by Diederik A. Stapel. His co-author was unaware of his actions, and not in any way involved.

Eleven other studies have cited the work, according to Google Scholar.

The other notice:

The following article from British Journal of Social Psychology, ‘It depends on how you look at it: Being versus becoming mindsets determine responses to social comparisons’ by Camille S. Johnson and Diederik A. Stapel, published online on 24 December 2010 in Wiley Online Library (http://wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the co-author, the journal Editors in Chief, John Dixon and Jolanda Jetten and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed following the results of an investigation into the work of Diederik A. Stapel (https://www.commissielevelt.nl/). The Levelt Committee has determined that this article contained data that was fabricated as supplied by Diederik A. Stapel. His co-author was unaware of his actions, and not in any way involved.

The study has been cited once, according to Google Scholar.

28 retractions seems like a lot. But, to quote Stapel, “It depends on how you look at it.”

About these ads

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Latest news from the investigation (expected finalized at the end of this month) indicates 55 papers with fraudulent data. Still not even close to Fujii.

    Marco

    November 8, 2012 at 9:10 am


We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,385 other followers

%d bloggers like this: