Two more retractions for Diederik Stapel, his 33rd and 34th, by our count.
The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, which has been a frequent subject of Retraction Watch posts recently, has retracted “Similarities and differences between the impact of traits and expectancies: What matters is whether the target stimulus is ambiguous or mixed:” Continue reading Diederik Stapel earns 33rd and 34th retractions
One of the world’s leading cancer researchers, MIT’s Robert Weinberg, has retracted a decade-old paper after finding out it contained errors.
Here’s the notice for “Ras Modulates Myc Activity to Repress Thrombospondin-1 Expression and Increase Tumor Angiogenesis,” a paper originally published in Cancer Cell in 2003: Continue reading Leading cancer researcher retracts 2003 paper for “inappropriate presentation”
The next time a business professor in Thailand is looking for an ethics case study, he might look no further than the mirror.
Mohammad Asif Salam earned himself a five-year ban on publishing in a Springer journal after publishing work there that he’d already published elsewhere. Here’s the notice for “Corporate social responsibility in purchasing and supply chain,” a paper which appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics in 2009: Continue reading Do as I say, not as I do? Duplication in ethics journal earns author five-year publishing ban
Because of a number of heated exchanges in the comments over the past few weeks here at Retraction Watch — mostly in response to our coverage of the shutdown of the Science Fraud site — we’ve added this to our FAQ:
We are huge fans of Retraction Watch commenters. They broaden our posts, send us tips, and correct us when we get things wrong. Without them, the site would be a shadow of itself. However, we have recently found ourselves — this update is from January 2013 — having to edit ad hominem attacks out of comments, unapprove other comments, and contact some commenters to remind them of what’s appropriate.
It may not be clear to those who feel the need to resort to such personal attacks Continue reading A word about the Retraction Watch comments policy
Earlier this week, we reported on retractions six and seven , in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, for Lawrence Sanna, the former University of Michigan psychologist who resigned last May after questions were raised about his work. Retraction eight has now appeared, also in the JESP.
Here’s the notice for “When thoughts don’t feel like they used to: Changing feelings of subjective ease in judgments of the past:” Continue reading Retraction eight appears for social psychologist Lawrence Sanna
Diederik Stapel has another retraction, his 32nd.
Here’s the notice, for “”Information to go: Fluency enhances the usability of primed information,” which first appeared in 2010 in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology: Continue reading Retraction 32 appears for Diederik Stapel
Late last month, we reported on the case of Paul Muchowski, a former Gladstone Institute of Neurological Disease researcher who was found by the Office of Research Integrity to have “falsely reported research experiments when the results did not exist at the time the grant applications were submitted.” At the time, Muchowski, who resigned from the Gladstone in November of last year, said he had no comment. Tonight, he sent us an apology and clarification to the scientific community, and asked us to post it. Here, we present Muchowski’s letter, unedited:
Apology and Clarification
To Members of the Community: Continue reading Paul Muchowski, sanctioned last month by the ORI for falsely reporting results, offers an apology
Nature published an interesting piece yesterday, titled “Rehab’ helps errant researchers return to the lab.” Excerpt:
With the rapid growth of misconduct cases, some scientists are worried that preventative training in research ethics might not be enough. Nor will it be possible simply to dismiss all violators from science. Scientific rehabilitation, they say, will have to become a necessary tool for research-integrity offices.
“Sometimes these are very talented researchers,” says James DuBois, an ethicist at Saint Louis University, who leads the rehab programme, called RePAIR (Restoring Professionalism and Integrity in Research). “We believe that if we can equip them with certain skills, they can return to the field as very productive individuals.”
There’s some question, as Nature notes, whether RePAIR or other programs like it will be effective. But if the comments Ivan saw in response to a tweet about RePAIR are any indication, there are a number of scientists wondering whether scientists found guilty of fraud deserve to be rehabilitated at all Continue reading Can we — or should we — rehabilitate scientists who commit misconduct?
Three new retractions — two of papers by Lawrence Sanna and one of work by Dirk Smeesters — have appeared in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. The retractions come along with a hard-hitting piece by the journal’s editor.
In a tough soul-searching editorial called “On Fraud, Deceit, and Ethics” (unfortunately only available behind a paywall), journal editor in chief Joel Cooper writes that “Fraud committed by any social psychologist diminishes all social psychologists.” He continues: Continue reading “Fraud committed by any social psychologist diminishes all social psychologists”: New Sanna, Smeesters retractions
Eric Smart, who as we reported in November was sanctioned by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) for faking dozens of images in ten papers and seven grants over the past decade, has had his first retraction.
Here’s the December 24 notice, from PNAS: Continue reading First retraction for Eric Smart, who faked dozens of images, appears in PNAS