Retraction 46 arrives for Diederik Stapel

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 

7 thoughts on “Retraction 46 arrives for Diederik Stapel”

  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…

    1. 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).

    2. 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.

        1. 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 I knew of the report but thought that it was out of date, given that retractions are still coming in after the final report.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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.