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
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
Dutch investigators have released their final report into the case of Diederik Stapel, the social scientist and erstwhile faculty member at Tilburg University who fabricated data in 55 articles and book chapters. So far, 31 of Stapel’s published papers have been retracted — three others have expressions of concern — although more might follow.
In addition, 10 dissertations by students Stapel supervised were found to contain fraudulent data, although those students were cleared of any wrongdoing in the inquiry.
The report — and we’re going by rough translations here — found that Stapel’s colleagues and administrators seemed to accept his results at face value. Meanwhile, his high profile at Tilburg insulated him against initial rumblings about problems with his data. As the Dutch paper NRC Handelsblad reported: Continue reading Going Dutch: Stapel inquiry eyes credulous colleagues, institution, prompts national soul search
Diederik Stapel has three more retractions, making 31.
The most recent three we’ve found all appear in the European Journal of Social Psychology: Continue reading Diederik Stapel notches retractions 29, 30, and 31
Canada’s University of Waterloo is racking up the retractions, with one in July for plagiarism, another earlier this month for faked data from a graduate student who had her master’s degree revoked, and now a third for duplication.
Here’s the notice, for “The influence of friends, family, and older peers on smoking among elementary school students: Low-risk students in high-risk schools,” which appeared in Preventive Medicine in March 2006: Continue reading Another retraction from University of Waterloo, this time for duplication
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry has retracted a 2003 paper on the treatment of alcoholism for a vague “copyright violation.” But the reason appears to be that the article was largely identical to a 2002 report from one of the authors and other colleagues.
The offending paper, “Acamprosate and its efficacy in treating alcohol dependent adolescents,” appeared in June 2003 and has been cited 51 times, according to Google Scholar. The authors were Helmut Niederhofer and Wolfgang Staffen, of the Christian Doppler-Klinik, in Salzburg.
According to the rather uninformative notice: Continue reading Make it a double: Alcohol treatment study pulled for duplication
Achtentwintig.
That’s 28 in Dutch, and is the number of retractions so far racked up by Diederik Stapel, according to our count.
The latest two to come to our attention are in the British Journal of Social Psychology, where Stapel has already had a retraction.
Here’s one notice: Continue reading And then there were 28: Two more retractions for Diederik Stapel
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: Continue reading Lemus, Stapel each rack up another retraction
It’s not often that wade into retractions in the mainstream media on this blog, but in this case, we’ll make an exception.
As Politico and Poynter — and probably others — have reported, CNN has retracted a story about a yet-to-be-published study in Psychological Science claiming to find a link between estrogen and elections (disclosure: Ivan’s wife works at CNN). Specifically, the researchers reported that the well-documented preference among single women for President Obama might be rooted in their sex hormones, while that of married women for Mitt Romney seems to reflect their own ovulatory cycle. Or something like that.
Here’s the money part of the piece, which can still be found floating around on the web: Continue reading Psychological Science in the news again: CNN retracts story on hormone-voting link
Earlier today, we reported on what we thought was the first retraction to appear for Dirk Smeesters, who we noted was “the former Erasmus University social psychology professor investigated for serious irregularities in his work.” It turns out, however, as a Retraction Watch tipster told us, that another retraction had already been published.
The notice appeared in the August 2012 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research: Continue reading We missed one: Make that two retractions for Dirk Smeesters