About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Another retraction for sex researcher Weijmar Schultz

with 7 comments

Weijmar Schultz

Weijmar Schultz

Willibrord Weijmar Schultz, the Groningen sex researcher (and Ig Nobel winner) who misused the 1985 thesis of an American scholar, and the work of another researcher, in at least five published articles, has tallied another retraction in the affair, his sixth.

As we reported earlier, Schultz had been cleared of plagiarism but found to have abused the work (in an “unintended and unknowing” fashion, we’re told) of one Diana Jeffrey, by taking passages from her dissertation without acknowledgement. These articles are pretty long in the tooth, having been published in the 1990s.

The latest, in the Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, appeared in 1992. Titled “Sexual rehabilitation after gynecological cancer treatment,” Schultz wrote it with a colleague H.B.M. Van de Wiel, whose name shows up on the other retractions, too.

According to the notice:

We, the Editor and the Publisher of the American Journal of Sexuality Education, are retracting the following article:

Weijmar Schultz, W.C.M., Van de Wiel, H.B.M. (1992). Sexual rehabilitation after gynecological cancer treatment. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 18:4, 286–293.*

The Editor and Publisher received notice of an allegation of misconduct on the part of the Authors, namely, the Authors submitted the aforementioned paper to the journal without obtaining permission from Dr. Diana Jeffrey (formerly Dr. Diana Bransfield) regarding use of research from the following co-authored work in Sexual & Marital Therapy:

Weijmar Schultz, W. C. M. M., Bransfield, D. D., Van de Wiel, H. B. M., and Bouma, J. (1992).  Sexual outcome following female genital cancer treatment: A critical review of methods of investigations and results. Sexual & Marital Therapy, 7:1, 29–64. DOI:  10.1080/02674659208404465

The aforementioned article also failed to reference the following dissertation:

Bransfield, D. D. Psychosexual functioning after irradiation for gynecologic cancer.  Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 45 (12-B, Pt 1), June 1985, pp. 3990–3991.

The Editor and Publisher find this allegation to be valid. These actions constitute a breach of warranties made by the authors with respect to originality. We note we received, peer-reviewed, accepted, and published this article in good faith based on these warranties, and censure these actions.

*The American Journal of Sexuality Education, which has been in print since 2005, was previously published as the Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, which went out of print in 1997.

In addition to being plagiar … er, copyright violators, Schultz et al seem also to have been unashamed by duplicate publications — or at least highly similar articles.

You might say that publishing, just like activities in the bedroom, benefits from a little variety.

Hat tip: Rolf Degen

About these ads

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Duplicate publications, copyright violations, misconduct … and an Ig Nobel ?

    What a cocktail!

    aceil

    January 6, 2014 at 2:27 pm

  2. Just for the correctness of the title: Groningen is a City in the Netherlands, so I wonder whether Schulz is Dutch?!

    Wessi

    January 6, 2014 at 3:02 pm

  3. These “unintended and unknowing” plagiarisms are a real problem these days! I live in terror that one day I will wake up and find I’ve written, submitted and published a plagiarized paper without even realizing it.

    • “I live in terror that one day I will wake up and find I’ve written, submitted and published a plagiarized paper without even realizing it.”

      It’s only January 7 and you have my vote for comment of the year. Well said.

      Ernie Gordon

      January 7, 2014 at 11:45 am

  4. This is strange: You can buy the retraction of an older paper by Weijmar Schultz at Amazon.com for $9.95.

    This is scarcely going to become a bestseller.

    Rolf Degen

    January 8, 2014 at 11:34 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 35,687 other followers

%d bloggers like this: