Lemus, Stapel each rack up another retraction

The retraction counts keep mounting for two Retraction Watch frequent flyers.

First, Diederik Stapel’s 26th retraction, according to our count. Psychologist Stapel admitted to making up data in dozens of studies, and is also facing a criminal inquiry for misuse of funds.

Here’s the notice:

Johnson, C. S., Norton, M. I., Nelson, L., Stapel, D. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2008). The downside of feeling better: Self-regard repair harms performance. Self and Identity, 7(3), 262-277. DOI 10.1080/15298860701438414.

The above named article has been retracted from publication in Self and Identity by agreement of the journal Editor, the Publisher and the Co-authors. The retraction has been agreed following the results of an investigation into the work of Diederik A. Stapel by the Levelt Committee (www.commissielevelt.nl/levelt-committee/frauddetermined/) that determined this article contained data that was fabricated by Diederik A. Stapel. His co-authors were unaware of his actions, and not in any way involved.

The study has been cited five times, according to Google Scholar, with four of those citations from other papers by Johnson and Stapel.

Jesús A. Lemus, the Spanish veterinary researcher who was investigated for making up data as well as a co-author, has also has another retraction for his CV. Here’s the notice:

The authors wish to retract the PLOS ONE article ”Antibiotics threaten wildlife: circulating quinolone residues and disease in avian scavengers”.

The Ethics Committee of the Spanish Superior Council of Scientific Research (CSIC) has carried out a formal investigation in relation to concerns about potential scientific misconduct by Jesús A. Lemus, one of the authors of this article. The investigation has questioned the validity of the laboratory analyses conducted by Dr. Lemus; concerns were also raised about the existence of co-author Javier Grande.

Given the ephemeral nature of the material used (fresh plasma, swabs and tissues), we are unable to repeat these analyses with the same samples in order to verify the presence of veterinary drugs and pathogens.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience to the readership of PLOS ONE.

The retraction is the fourth for Lemus, according to our records, and the third in PLoS ONE. The original paper has been cited 47 times, according to Google Scholar.

Update, 6:30 a.m. Eastern, 11/2/12: Eagle-eyed commenter Marco spotted another Lemus retraction in PLoS ONE that went live on October 31, the day before this post did, for “Livestock Drugs and Disease: The Fatal Combination behind Breeding Failure in Endangered Bearded Vultures“:

Dr. Blanco, the first author, and the editors retract this publication.

The Ethics Committee of the Spanish Superior Council of Scientific Research (CSIC) has carried out a formal investigation in relation to concerns about potential scientific misconduct by Jesús A. Lemus, the second author of this article. The investigation has questioned the validity of the laboratory analyses conducted by Dr. Lemus.

Given the ephemeral nature of the material used (liver, bursa of Fabricius, etc.), it is not possible to repeat these analyses with the same samples in order to confirm the presence of veterinary drugs and pathogens.

We sincerely apologize to the readership of PLOS ONE.

The paper has been cited four times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, including twice by Lemus and Blanco. It brings Lemus’s overall retraction total to five.

Hat tip on Stapel: Rolf Degen