Measure by measure: Diederik Stapel count rises again, to 54

stapel_npcDiederik Stapel is up to 54 retractions.

Here’s the notice from Self and Identity:

Schwinghammer, S. A., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Measure by measure: When implicit and explicit social comparison effects differ. Self and Identity, 10, 166–173. DOI: 10.1080/15298861003680117.

The above named article has been retracted from publication in Self and Identity by agreement of the journal Editor, the Publisher and the Co-authors.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 after the Noort Committee determined fraud in the publication. For further details, please visit the following link

The paper has been cited just once, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, in a paper published this spring called “Attractiveness of Limited Edition Artwork for First Generation Newly Affluent Consumers.” It’s Stapel’s second retraction from Self and Identity.

Hat tip: Rolf Degen

6 thoughts on “Measure by measure: Diederik Stapel count rises again, to 54”

  1. Most of the RW posts about Stapel’s retractions are illustrated with the same photo. I’ve now seen 21 times this guy with this mocking smile. Maybe I’m turning paranoid, but I imagine he says “yeeeeesss, I’m back ! I’ve soooooo many papers to retract, you will see me for ever and ever !”
    Google Image is your friend.

    1. This is the answer in 99 % of cases when the investigation is conducted by the institution of the offender.
      They always say (after all other means to dismiss the allegations are exhausted) that “after thorough investigation there is no evidence for misconduct”.
      This only proves that internal investigations are USELESS. What these do is mainly COVER UP.
      It’s time to launch the Transparency Index which will show whether the editor/publisher/institution Do_the_Right_Thing in all these cases of obvious and straightforward misconduct.

      1. I suspect you’re wrong. I’ve been involved in dozens of internal investigations — not research misconduct, but mostly financial misconduct and sexual harassment. Internal investigation works quite well under most circumstances, but not always. The main red flags are (a) little support from top management; (b) investigator is from inside the affected unit or doesn’t understand that getting it right is more important to his own job than making people happy, or the investigator doesn’t talk to (c) all potential witnesses at least briefly and (d) with at least some kind of privacy. As an empirical matter, you don’t need Sherlock Holmes. Dr. Watson will get the right answer maybe 90% of the time if he avoids those four pot-holes. If he does get the right answer, you (as the general public) will not often hear about it. Someone will abruptly resign, the department reorganizes with a change of budget allocations, a few people get transferred — that sort of thing. It isn’t infallible by any means, but it isn’t useless at all.

      2. That is exactly right and I am speaking from my own experience. University committees that investigate scientific fraud operate under the tacit understanding that cover-up is the most desirable outcome.

  2. Super-rio, I concur. I’ve experienced the same. It’s disgusting and frustrating how people are put in place for show and not for their intended purposes. When dealing with research misconduct I could imagine one would feel like it’s him/her against the world. That is how I felt, until I decided to cut the cord and let it be.

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.