Retractions have arrived in the case of Peter Nijkamp, a leading Dutch economist accused of duplication and plagiarism. The Review of Economic Analysis has removed two of Nijkamp’s articles for self-plagiarism.
According to the NRC Handelsblad website (courtesy of Google translate):
The affair university economics professor Peter Nijkamp and his PhD student Karima Kourtit has escalated. The editors of the journal Review of Economic Analysis (RoEA) appears to have withdrawn because of self-plagiarism two scientific articles (reuse your own work earlier without acknowledgment), NRC Handelsblad discovered last week at the RoEA website.
The website reports that “significant parts” of the reclusive articles have appeared in other publications Nijkamp and Nijkamp / Kourtit, “without reference orderly” earlier. It involves work Nijkamp alone and work of VU economist Frank Bruinsma with Nijkamp and Kourtit.
Here’s one notice from the Review of Economic Analysis:
The paper “An Agent-Based Decision Support Model for the Development of E-Services in the Tourist Sector “ by Frank Bruinsma, Karima Kourtit and Peter Nijkamp published in vol 2(3), 2010, has been withdrawn by the editors because significant parts of the paper appeared in other publications of the co-authors without proper citation.
And the other:
The paper “Migration Impact Assessment: A Review of Evidence-Based Findings “ by Peter Nijkamp published in vol. 4(2), 2012, has been withdrawn by the editors because significant parts of the paper appeared in other publications of the author without proper citation.
We also found a third retraction of Nijkamp’s work, this one apparently unrelated to the plagiarism investigation. It involves an August 2012 study in the International Regional Science Review (think about that name for a second, and then about why Hawaii has interstate highways) titled “A Schumpeterian Model of Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Regional Economic Growth,” which Nijkamp wrote with Amitrajeet A. Batabyal, of the Rochester Institute of Technology. According to the notice, which requires substantial gymnastics to find:
We regret that a number of corrections were not incorporated in the article. The following represents the corrected version of the article of the same title that was published in the International Regional Science Review 35:339–361. Please refer to this corrected version when citing the article.
Nijkamp’s work is heavily cited. He has an i10-index of 290 since 2009.
Update, 6 p.m. Eastern, 7/3/14: Frank van Kolfschooten reports that the International Regional Science Review paper was retracted because the publishers posted a proof of the study that didn’t include the authors’ corrections:
There were so many that the withdrawal of the entire article was better then publishing separately. Then, the correct version was republished.