Retraction 32 appears for Diederik Stapel

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:

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 So far, 31 of Stapel’s published papers have been retracted — three others have expressions of concern — although more might follow.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:

Diederik Stapel notches retractions 29, 30, and 31

Diederik Stapel has three more retractions, making 31.

The most recent three we’ve found all appear in the European Journal of Social Psychology:

And then there were 28: Two more retractions for Diederik Stapel

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:

Lemus, Stapel each rack up another retraction

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:

Diederik Stapel faces criminal inquiry for misuse of funds

The Dutch media are reporting that Diederik Stapel, the Tilburg University social psychologist who fabricated data in dozens of studies, is facing a criminal probe for his misuse of some 2.2 million euros (roughly $2.8 million U.S.) in government grant funding.

A Retraction Watch commenter tipped us off this morning that the newspaper NRC Handelsblad reports (thanks to Google Translate):

A fistful of Stapels: Psych journal retracts five more from Dutch researcher, upping total to 25

Diederik Stapel’s CV continues to crumble, with five more retractions for the disgraced Dutch social scientist who admitted to fabricating data in his studies.

The latest articles to fall appeared in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, a Sage title, bringing Stapel’s total to 25 that we’re aware of so far:

And then there were 20: Diederik Stapel retraction count keeps growing

Although he’s in no danger of breaking the current record of 172 likely retractions, Diederik Stapel now has 20 to his, um, credit.

The September 2012 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology features these seven:

We’re up to 13: Retractions keep coming for Diederik Stapel

The retraction count is up to 13 for Dutch psychology fraudster Diederik Stapel, with four more in the publications the Journal of Consumer Research, Motivation & Emotion, Psychology & Marketing, and Social Cognition.

Here are the notices:

Three more retractions for Diederik Stapel

We apologize for what must seem like a constant drip, drip, drip, but we have three more retractions from Diederik Stapel to report, all from the European Journal of Social Psychology.

The first, in order of publication date, involves a 2006 paper by Stapel and co-author Camille Johnson — whose name has appeared on several other of Stapel’s retracted papers — titled “When nothing compares to me: How defensive motivations and similarity shape social comparison effects.”

The notice reads: