Duplication, aka self-plagiarism, meets management-speak

What happens when people who study management have to write a retraction notice? This, from Management Learning, regarding a paper by Gordon Müller-Seitz of the Free University of Berlin, suggests one possibility:

“When we wonder what it all means”: Stapel retraction count rises to 49

Diederik Stapel is up to 49 retractions.

Here are the latest three, from Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin:

Diederik Stapel earns 33rd and 34th retractions

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:”

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:

Psychological Science retracts a Sanna paper, citing lawyers, COPE…and Retraction Watch

In April 2011, we praised Psychological Science for its handling of a retraction. At the time, we went as far as to call the retraction notice a “model” of transparency for other journals to follow.

Well, they evidently took that compliment seriously, according to a new retraction notice for a paper by Lawrence Sanna. Sanna left Michigan under a cloud a few months ago after another scientist found his data statistically implausible, as Ed Yong reported in Nature.

The newly retracted paper, “Construing collective concerns: Increasing cooperation by broadening construals in social dilemmas,” was published in 2009 while Sanna was still at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Here’s a sample from the abstract:

Hmmm: SAGE’s attorney explains why weight loss retraction notices said less than those of other journals

In May, we broke the story of Edward Shang, a weight loss surgeon who made up most, if not all, of the patients he reported on in at least one study. We’ve been following the case since then, including three more retractions in the Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (JPEN).

As we noted in a June 22 post, the notices in JPEN were a bit more lean than the first notice we found, in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases. The latter read:

Three papers by German management prof retracted for duplication, statistical issues

Ulrich Lichtenthaler, a management professor in Germany, has had three papers retracted by two different journals, after readers noticed statistical irregularities.

Lichtenthaler was at the WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management when he published the papers in 2009 and 2010. He is now at the University of Mannheim. The retraction in Strategic Organization was first reported by the Strategy Profs blog. It reads:

Withdraw that emotion: Psych journal retracts two Stapel papers on mood

Two more papers from Dutch fraudster Diederik Stapel have been retracted. Both appeared in the journal Psychological Science in 2008, with the same, evidently unwitting co-author, Kirsten Ruys, of Tilburg University.

Here is the notice:

Three more retractions for weight loss surgeon Edward Shang for making up data

Edward Shang, the weight loss surgeon who lost his job at the University of Leipzig in May after it was revealed that he had made up most, if not all, of the patients in his research studies at the University of Mannheim, has retracted three more papers.

Here’s the notice, which is a bit, um, lean, given what we know about the case:

Fujii retractions mount

Spring is a time of rebirth and renewal — and, if you are Yoshitaka Fujii, retraction.

We have seen retraction notices in two journals concerning papers by Fujii, the Japanese anesthesiologist who, according to an international group of editors, may ultimately lose some 190 publications to research fraud.

Otoloaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery last month had the following notice for a 2011 article titled “Antiemetic Efficacy of Low-Dose Midazolam in Patients Undergoing Thyroidectomy,” by Fujii and an M. Ikatura (who has not been accused of wrongdoing, as far as we know):