“Fraud committed by any social psychologist diminishes all social psychologists”: New Sanna, Smeesters retractions

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:

Retraction three for Dirk Smeesters

Amid criticisms this week that his former university didn’t do all it should have to investigate his work, another paper by Dirk Smeesters has been retracted.

Here’s the notice for “The effect of color (red versus blue) on assimilation versus contrast in prime-to-behavior effects,” which appeared in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology:

We missed one: Make that two retractions for Dirk Smeesters

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:

Retraction appears for paper by social psychologist Dirk Smeesters

A paper by Dirk Smeesters — the former Erasmus University social psychology professor investigated for serious irregularities in his work — has been retracted.

The study, “Visual perspective influences the use of metacognitive information in temporal comparisons,” appeared in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology earlier this year. Here’s the notice, which doesn’t quite say “fraud”:

Retraction eight appears for social psychologist Lawrence Sanna

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:”

Why aren’t there more retractions in business and economics journals?

A new paper has catalogued retractions over the past few decades in business and economics journals — and hasn’t found very many.

In “Retraction, Dishonesty and Plagiarism: Analysis of a Crucial Issue for Academic Publishing, and the Inadequate Responses from Leading Journals in Economics and Management Disciplines,” which just went online in the Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research (JAEBR), Solmaz Filiz Karabag and Christian Berggren identified 31 retractions in business journals dating back to 2005, and just six in economics journals, dating back to 2009.

The numbers in business journals are even lower when you consider that

Going Dutch: Stapel inquiry eyes credulous colleagues, institution, prompts national soul search

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:

“Invalid data” prompt retraction of another paper from psychologist Sanna

The journal Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice is retracting a 2003 paper by psychologist Lawrence Sanna, who appears to have been fabricating his data. Sanna’s work, Retraction Watch readers may recall, came under the scrutiny of Uri Simonsohn, who also investigated Dirk Smeesters’ research.

Here’s the notice, which offers an impressive amount of back story as these things go:

University of Michigan psychologist resigns following concerns by statistical sleuth Simonsohn: Nature

A second psychology researcher has resigned after statistical scrutiny of his papers by another psychologist revealed data that was too good to be true.

Ed Yong, writing in Nature, reports that Lawrence Sanna, most recently of the University of Michigan, left his post at the end of May. That was several months after Uri Simonsohn, a University of Pennsylvania psychology researcher, presented Sanna, his co-authors, and Sanna’s former institution, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, with evidence of “odd statistical patterns.”

Simonsohn is the researcher who also forced an investigation into the work of Dirk Smeesters, who resigned last month. Last week, Yong reported that Simonsohn had uncovered another case that hadn’t been made official yet.

According to today’s story, Sanna has asked the editor of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology — which is also retracting one of Smeesters’ papers — to retract three papers published from 2009 to 2011. These are the three he seems to have published there during that time:

Is science becoming less honest? Join Retraction Watch in a live chat with Science

A record-breaking year for retractions in 2011, a new record for retractions by one person — what’s going on?