About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Retraction 46 arrives for Diederik Stapel

with 7 comments

stapel_npcDiederik Stapel has a new retraction, his 46th.

Here’s the notice for “The effects of diffuse and distinct affect. ” by Diederik A. Stapel, Willem Koomen and Kirsten I. Ruys, which appeared in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2002:

This retraction follows the results of an investigation into the work of Diederik A. Stapel. The Noort Committee has found evidence of fraud, leading to the conclusion that fraud is most likely in the data supplied by Diederik A. Stapel. His co-authors were unaware of his actions and were not involved in the collection of the likely fraudulent data.

The paper has been cited 68 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

If you’re waiting (hoping?) for this litany of retractions to end, the reports of the Stapel investigations suggest 55 will be the final count.

Hat tip: Xavier Molénat 

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

February 5, 2013 at 11:26 am

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Actually, I am afraid the total rate of retractions will raise to 65. The number of 55 is based on the amount of papers with the label ‘fraud determined’, however, there are another 10 papers with the label ‘evidence of fraud’ (for example the paper retracted above). Apparently (some, most or all) journal editors have decided to also retract papers for which there is ‘evidence of fraud’.

    So, unfortunately, still 19 more to go…


    February 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    • Of course it’s unfortunate, but the open and thorough way with which this affair is being dealt is commendable. In contrast, three weeks ago Tilburg University announced that ‘appropriate measures’ would be taken against three psychologists whose work had been investigated after a tip off from the Levelt Committee that investigated Stapel’s fraud. ‘Serious inaccuracies and sloppiness’ had been found, but no details were given, apart from a few examples (such as ‘accidentally leaving out datasets’) and the assurance that they did not constitute intentional manipulation, but were the result of sloppy work. No names were given, nor what the ‘appropriate measures’ were, or which articles it concerned (and whether they would need to be retracted).


      February 6, 2013 at 3:38 am

    • “Evidence of fraud” = “having his name in the author list”?

      The Iron Chemist

      February 6, 2013 at 11:41 am

    • SF (or anyone), can you tell me where you’re getting this info? I would love a look at the papers labeled “evidence of fraud.” The Dutch Stapel Investigation closed too soon.


      February 18, 2013 at 8:15 pm

      • The website https://www.commissielevelt.nl/ contains the final report of the Stapel investigation (also available in English).


        February 19, 2013 at 3:43 am

        • Thank you! I knew of the report but thought that it was out of date, given that retractions are still coming in after the final report. Anyway, thanks.


          February 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm

  2. Three more retractions in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin



    February 5, 2013 at 3:00 pm

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,567 other followers

%d bloggers like this: