About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Retraction 32 appears for Diederik Stapel

with 5 comments

stapel_npcDiederik Stapel has another retraction, his 32nd.

Here’s the notice, for “”Information to go: Fluency enhances the usability of primed information,” which first appeared in 2010 in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology:

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).

This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.

The Levelt Committee (https://www.commissielevelt.nl) has determined fraud in this publication, committed by author Stapel.

The paper has been cited four times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

If you’re so inclined, you can read a review of Stapel’s autobiography, Derailed. According to the review, the book — which is only available in Dutch — is “unique, devastating, and a must-read for anyone with an interest in science.”

Hat tip: Rolf Degen

About these ads

Written by ivanoransky

January 10, 2013 at 8:30 am

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Thanks for the link to the review of Stapel’s book (which I think should be translated into English). I quote:

    ‘To what extent do the current academic incentives encourage researchers to make their findings look better than they are? To what extent can we trust researchers, and leave them alone with a “big jar of cookies?” The Levelt committee concluded that social psychology needs to clean up its act as an academic discipline, but Ontsporing suggests that the Levelt advice might be relevant for other disciplines also.’

    Today there is a column “AGU, Gleick, Climate Science, and Baseball Steroid Use” by Willis Eschenbach on WUWT. Quote:

    No one was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame this year. Voters seem to have been turned off by the steroid scandals, which involved some of the players eligible this year. The pitcher Curt Shilling was what you might term “collateral damage”—he had nothing to do with steroids, was always clean, and yet he didn’t get in to the Hall of Fame this year. Shilling has his supporters and detractors, but yesterday he made one of the most mature comments I could ever imagine. I can only hope that climate science holds players as honest and responsible about their own profession as is Curt Schilling. He said:

    “If there was ever a ballot and a year to make a statement about what we didn’t do as players — which is we didn’t actively push to get the game clean — this is it.”

    “Perception in our world is absolutely reality. Everybody is linked to it. You either are a suspected user or you’re somebody who didn’t actively do anything to stop it. You’re one or the other if you were a player in this generation.

    “Unfortunately I fall into the category of one of the players that didn’t do anything to stop it. As a player rep and a member of the association, we had the ability to do it and we looked the other way, just like the media did, just like the ownership did, just like the fans did. And now this is part of the price that we’re paying.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/10/agu-gleick-climate-science-and-baseball-steroid-use/

    André van Delft

    January 10, 2013 at 8:58 am

  2. “The last chapter — an unexpectedly beautiful, poetic description of Stapel waking up next to his wife — feeds the idea that the narrator may not be entirely trustworthy: It is composed of sentences that Stapel copies from the fiction writers Raymond Carver and James Joyce but presents them without quotes and only acknowledges the sources separately in the appendices”.

    chirality

    January 10, 2013 at 8:59 am

  3. I urge people to pirate the book and distribute it free online. Not a euro-cent should find its way to him.

  4. Apparantly someone’s already done so! Help yourself, people.

  5. This is odd. If he wanted to make money, he should have written it in English.

    Average PI

    January 13, 2013 at 4:39 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 31,393 other followers

%d bloggers like this: