text: Journal retracts two Stapel papers, on salesmen and on women who change their names when they marry | Retraction Watch
  Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Journal retracts two Stapel papers, on salesmen and on women who change their names when they marry
  The journal Basic and Applied Social Psychology has retracted two articles by Diederik Stapel, the Dutch researcher who has admitted falsifying his data. Stapel was suspended from his post at Tilburg University in September.
  Here are the notices, which appear together:
  Statements of Retraction
  The following article is being retracted from publication in Basic and Applied Social Psychology: ''What's in a Name? 361.708 Euros: The Effects of Marital Name Change,'' by Marret K. Noordewier, Femke van Horen, Kirsten I. Ruys, & Diederik A. Stapel (32:1, 17–25, DOI:10.1080=01973530903539812).
  After the Levelt Committee determined this article to be fraudulent, the Editors and Publishers of Basic
  and Applied Social Psychology have retracted the article (for further details, please visit the following link).
  The following article is being retracted from publication in Basic and Applied Social Psychology: ''Stereotype Disconfirmation Affect: When Sweet Hooligans Make You Happy and Honest Salesmen Make You Sad,'' by Marret K. Noordewier & Diederik A. Stapel (33:1, 1–6, DOI:10.1080=01973533.2010. 540135). After the Levelt Committee determined this article to be fraudulent, the Editors and Publishers of Basic and Applied Social Psychology have retracted the article (for further details, please visit the following link).
  Neither paper has been cited by any others, according to Thomson Scientific's Web of Knowledge. Both papers were subject to an expression of concern:
  We note our concern with respect to the articles "Stereotype Disconfirmation Affect: When Sweet Hooligans Make You Happy and Honest Salesmen Make You Sad" (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01973533.2010.540135) by Diederik Stapel and Marret K. Noordewier and "Harnessing Social Comparisons: When and How Upward Comparisons Influence Goal Pursuit" (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01973533.2010.495640) by Diederik Stapel and Camille S. Johnson. We note that on 31 October 2011, Tilburg University released interim findings of its investigation into apparent data fraud in works published by Diederik Stapel.
  INTERIM REPORT REGARDING THE BREACH OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY COMMITTED BY PROF. D.A. STAPEL
  Pending the conclusion of the investigation, Basic and Applied Social Psychology is publishing this Editors' Statement of Concern about the validity of data reported in this article.
  Interestingly, the journal is not — for the moment, at least — retracting a 2010 paper by Stapel and Camille Johnson, "Harnessing Social Comparisons: When and How Upward Comparisons Influence Goal Pursuit." And for what it's worth, Stapel and Johnson were listed as editorial consultants for the BASP in the years 2003-2004. We left voice and email messages for BASP's editor, but haven't heard back yet.
  Science retracted a paper by Stapel in December, after initially issuing an expression of concern about the work. Published reports have said that investigators believe some 30 of Stapel's papers, and possibly many more, will require retraction.
  As noted elsewhere, Tilburg and two of Stapel's former institutions, the University of Amsterdam and the University of Groningen, have set up a website to monitor in real time the investigation into his research. The site includes a list of 18 publications, including the three retracted articles mentioned in this post, and three dissertations marred by bogus data. Among the reasons for the determinations are (from various papers):
  Fake data collection (school data), data supplied by Mr. Stapel
  Very doubtful results, e.g., too strong effect sizes in particular given the reliabilities of the scales, all F's smaller than 1 for non-significant results
  Highly unlikely design of experiments, that is, unlikely next to impossible to realize experimental set up in the described circumstances
  Highly unbelievably results, e.g., seven out of seven F-values < 1 for research hypotheses where no effect is expected (and later: six out of six F < 1); very high correlations between scales of need for structure and stereotyping, higher than can be expected from these scales' reliabilities
  We think that's a transparent approach other institutions might want to consider when they're faced with similar situations.
  Share this:TwitterFacebookDiggRedditEmailStumbleUponGoogle +1LinkedInTumblrPinterestLike this:Like Loading...	Written by amarcus41 April 26, 2012 at 12:24 pm
  Posted in basic and applied social psychology, diederik stapel, faked data, freely available, psychology, taylor and francis, the netherlands
  « Authors' public dispute over retraction notice in Cytokine ends in a draw, bruises journal
  JACS temporarily pulls "space dinosaurs" paper for alleged duplication »
  Poor Marret K. Noordewier.
  April 27, 2012 at 6:54 am	Reply	Yes, she will get up to six retractions. Here's another one:
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02002.x/abstract
  On the other hand, if you look at the statements on the Stapel Investigation website, one could also ask why Marret Noordewier did not notice the problems.
  April 27, 2012 at 11:45 am	Reply	The second investigative committee, the Noort committee, recently published their results. https://www.commissielevelt.nl/noort-committee/fraud-determined/
  The results indicate that mr Stapel does not seem to remember whether several of his older papers are fraudulent.
  May 10, 2012 at 3:12 pm	Reply	"What's in a Name? 361.708 Euros: The Effects of Marital Name Change"
  Funny coincidence: if you take that no. in the title (361.708) and relate it to the Dewey Decimal Classification System, you get:
  36 social problems and social services
  361 social problems and services
  361.7 private action
  361.708 groups of people
  January 27, 2013 at 10:47 am	Reply	We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below. Cancel reply
  Recent Comments	Scrutineer on Why I retracted my Nature pape…Eibl on Why I retracted my Nature pape…Marco on Why I retracted my Nature pape…	Retraction posts by author, country, journal, subject, and type
  "Good news! After cancer is cured twice, we now have a cure for Diabetes!" @praeburn wields the critic's scalpel bit.ly/16gO0vV 1 hour ago
  Today's incredibly close encounter with a bear video comes to you via @BryanAppleyard @vb2b @AHCJ_Pia tinyurl.com/ka5nzos 1 hour ago
  Why I retracted my Nature paper: A guest post about correcting the scientific record bit.ly/16JstNj 7 hours ago