Diederik Stapel

Last updated

Diederik Alexander Stapel (born 19 October 1966) is a Dutch former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University. [1] In 2011 Tilburg University suspended Stapel for fabricating and manipulating data for his research publications. This scientific misconduct took place over a number of years and affected dozens of his publications. [2] [3] By 2015, fifty-eight of Stapel's publications had been retracted. [4] He has been described in coverage by the New York Times as "the biggest con man in academic science". [5]

Contents

Early life

Stapel was born in the village of Oegstgeest, near Leiden, the youngest of four children. His father worked as a civil engineer. [5] [6]

After completing his schooling, Stapel studied drama and media studies at East Stroudsburg University in Pennsylvania before moving back to the Netherlands for an undergraduate degree in psychology. [5] Stapel obtained an MA degree in psychology and communication science from the University of Amsterdam in 1991. From the same university he obtained his PhD cum laude in social psychology in 1997; his dissertation was on assimilation and contrast effects. [1] Before embarking on his doctoral research, in 1991–1992, Stapel returned to the US for study, undertaking a program on behavioral decision making at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business. [7]

He married in 1997; Stapel and his wife had first met in high school.

Career

After gaining his doctorate, Stapel continued at UvA as a fellow of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) for three years. [8] Stapel became a professor at the University of Groningen in 2000 [1] and moved to Tilburg University in 2006, where he cofounded TiBER, the Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research. [1] In September 2010, Stapel became dean of the social and behavioral sciences faculty. [1]

Stapel received the Career Trajectory Award from the Society of Experimental Social Psychology in 2009, which has since been retracted. [9] He voluntarily surrendered his PhD title to the University of Amsterdam in November 2011, noting that his "behavior of the past years are inconsistent with the duties associated with the doctorate". This action was taken into account in the decision of Dutch prosecutors to not pursue criminal actions. [10]

Scientific misconduct

Investigations

In September 2011, Tilburg University suspended Stapel due to his fabrication of data used in research publications. The university announced an investigation of his work. [11] [12]

On 31 October 2011, a committee entrusted with investigating "the extent and nature of the breach of scientific integrity committed by Mr D.A. Stapel", formed by the Rector Magnificus of Tilburg University and chaired by Willem ("Pim") Levelt, published an interim report regarding Stapel's activities at the three Dutch universities where he had worked. [13]

Stapel provided the investigating committees with a list of his publications that contained fictitious data, acknowledging that it may not be complete. [13]

An extensive report analyzes all 130 of Stapel's articles and twenty-four book chapters. [14] A website was set up on 27 March 2012 to publish interim findings. [14] [15] [16] According to the first findings, out of an initial batch of twenty Stapel publications studied by the Levelt committee, twelve journal articles were fabricated and three contributions to books were also fraudulent. [14] [17] The Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant reported that the final report was due on 28 November 2012, and that a book by Stapel was to be released around the same time. [18]

"We have some 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come," Pim Levelt, chair of the committee investigating Stapel's work said in a media statement. [19]

Suspicions raised

The Levelt joint committees' reports acknowledged three unnamed young Tilburg University researchers as the whistleblowers for the case. The whistleblowers had become suspicious when one noticed anomalous data they had received from Stapel. Subsequent discussion with Stapel did not allay their concerns. During a research meeting where Stapel presented data for a new study, the data fitted the hypothesis so perfectly that someone joked "It is as if he made up these data himself." [20] The three spent several months conducting their own enquiries using data files Stapel had supplied. They found an entire row of scores appearing identically in two studies, which strongly suggested of fraud. Once they felt they had sufficient evidence, they approached the head of the Department of Social Psychology, Marcel Zeelenberg. The students' evidence was convincing enough that Zeelenburg brought it directly to the rector magnificus , Philip Eijlander. Official investigations were set in motion within days by Tilburg University, which were soon joined by the UvA and the University of Groningen. [5] [21] Stapel claimed that the data was collected by his contacts in schools. When the rector asked Stapel for those contacts, Stapel said the schools did not actually exist. This was the smoking gun. [20]

The Levelt report also noted two professors who claim they had previously seen examples of Stapel's data that were "too good to be true." [13]

Methods

Stapel controlled the data in his lab: when students asked to see the raw data, they were often given excuses. [22] There were occasions when Stapel's data were given to an assistant to be entered into a computer. This assistant would then return the data file to Stapel. The researcher analyzing the data would then receive the file directly from Stapel. [13]

Curiosity regarding datasets was discouraged by Stapel and, at times, persistent or perceptive questioning would be met with apparent hostility. In one case the Levelt committee reports, a PhD student who was querying unusual data was told by Stapel: "If you want to be taken on here you will have to demonstrate that you can get something finished, so just write up the results." Several PhD students told the investigation that they had been pressured into silence by Stapel's untoward use of his power over them. [23]

As his process for fraudulent research developed, by his Tilburg years his general method was to formulate in full all the elements of a proposed study – an experiment, with its theoretical grounding, the hypotheses, methods, stimuli, questionnaires, and even participants' rewards – and then create the fictitious data which he would then provide to colleagues and students for further analysis. He would pretend to run the experiments with the help of unnamed research assistants. Instead of doing so, he would make up the data. A plausible explanation would be offered for excluding others from data collection. For example, several experiments were to be run in schools; Stapel made it known that he had access to these by special arrangements which would be endangered by involving other researchers. The purported schools preferred to deal with Stapel alone, whom they knew and trusted and would be bothered by having additional, unknown researchers involved. [24] Earlier in his career, going back at least to 2004, rather than faking data, the investigations found he appears to have manipulated data —for example, by simply altering numerals in the recorded outcome measures, so that the calculated means of scores for the contrasted experimental conditions would appear to differ, in support of his tested hypothesis. [25]

Stapel's supply of pre-collected data to his graduate students was noted as being atypical for masters students and PhD candidates, but was presented by Stapel as an advantage to them, which they did perceive as helpful and even a luxury. [26] This process, even apart from the fraudulent data, was inappropriate, with most of the students graduating without ever actually completing an experiment. [13]

Stapel's scientific misconduct went undetected for at least fifteen years. The Levelt report concludes that his academic reputation was, in part, the reason his illicit activities were able to continue for such a length of time. At Tilburg he was considered a leading researcher with a high profile both in academic psychology and in the popular media in the Netherlands. His colleagues and students generally viewed him positively. The report says he had a reputation as being "charismatic, friendly and incredibly talented". [27] Many students became his personal friends. [5]

Findings

On 28 November 2012, the final joint report, from the three investigating committees, was published. [27]

The interim report concluded that Stapel falsified or fabricated data for at least 30 publications. [13] When the final report was released, that number had risen to fifty-five. They were unable to determine whether Stapel fabricated or manipulated data for his 1997 dissertation at the University of Amsterdam (UvA), because the data had been destroyed, in common with data for much of Stapel's earlier work. The university announced that it would investigate whether it would be possible to retract Stapel's PhD because of exceptionally unworthy scientific behavior. [28] [29] [30]

The interim report stated that Stapel had caused severe damage to young people at the beginning of their careers, as well as to the general confidence in science, in particular social psychology. [13] The University of Tilburg announced that it would pursue criminal prosecution of Stapel. [31]

Despite being critical of an overarching shortfall in collective academic responsibility, the investigating committees emphasized that Stapel acted alone in all cases of known misconduct. The report found no indication that any coauthors, PhD students, or others were aware of the fraudulent conduct. The reports did suggest that the data were in some instances so unusual that suspicion may have been reasonable. [32] The interim report names 19 theses prepared with data delivered by Stapel. Of those, seven have been cleared. There are various degrees of suspicion about the remaining twelve. The report advised that the degrees of the students involved should not be retracted. [33]

Prosecution settlement

In June 2013 Stapel agreed, in a settlement with the prosecutor, to perform 120 hours of community service and to lose the right to some benefits associated with his former job equivalent to a year and a half's worth of salary. In this way, he avoided further criminal prosecution. [34] [35]

Reaction

Stapel response

Responding to the interim report, Stapel stated: [36] [lower-alpha 1]

I have failed as a scientist, as a researcher. I have manipulated research data and faked studies. Not once, but several times, not for a short period, but over a longer period of time. I realize that by this behavior I have left my immediate colleagues bewildered and angry and have put my field of study, social psychology, in a bad light. I'm ashamed of that and I deeply regret it. ... it is important to emphasize that I never informed my colleagues of my inappropriate behavior. I offer my colleagues, my PhD students, and the complete academic community my sincere apologies. I am aware of the suffering and sorrow that I caused to them ...

In his memoirs published in November 2012, Stapel admits his fraud, but protests against the accusation in the interim report that he was a cunning, manipulative fraud with a plan.

In academia

In a review for the Association for Psychological Science's Observer, Stapel's Ontsporing ('Derailment'), a book-length memoir, is described by Dutch psychologists Denny Borsboom and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers as "revealing". In the work, Stapel recounts that his transgressions began when he was sitting alone in his office and changed "an unexpected 2 into a 4". The reviewers suggest the memoir may provide insights into systemic failures within research science, saying that in his account of the affair, "Stapel appears to underscore the conclusions from the Levelt committee" in this regard. On their reading, there are also the personal frailties that contributed to the fraud on show: They call it a "... a captivating book, even as it is transparently self-serving. On a personal level, it is an emotional account of a fraudster's insecurities, fears, and self-hatred." [37] The reviewers describe the final chapter of the book as "unexpectedly beautiful" but consider that many of its lines are "copied" from the works of writers Raymond Carver and James Joyce, without due acknowledgement. [38] Borsboom and Wagenmakers reviewed the Dutch language edition; the English translation of Stapel's Ontsporing by Nicholas J. L. Brown includes a note regarding "Chapter 10 ½": [39]

This last chapter is my own reinterpretation of some of the final lines of Raymond Carver's poem "The Gift" (from the collection Ultramarine, 1986, Random House, New York), into which I have also woven a couple of lines from the ending of James Joyce's story "The Dead" (from The Dubliners, 1990, Bantam Classics, New York). The title of the chapter is a reference to the chapter entitled "Parenthesis" in Julian Barnes's novel The History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters (1989, Jonathan Cape, London).

— Diederik Stapel (2016). Appendix, Faking Science

Withdrawn publications

Retraction overview

By December 2015, Retraction Watch reported that Stapel had 58 retracted publications, including journal articles and book chapters. This total number of retractions still stands as of 2023. [4] These are listed in the table below:

Chapters in edited books

Several chapters written or coauthored by Stapel in reference books were called into question in the Flawed Science report. The Levelt committee noted fraud in three chapters in academic books, each listed with the note: "Theoretical article, in important respect based on fraudulent articles"; they regarded the evidence in these cases sufficient to conclude "fraud established". [41] One of these chapters was subject to a formal retraction notice in the academic press and is included in Retraction Watch's database. The three chapters are listed in the table below:

List of book chapters with "fraud established"
Chapter titleYearEditorsPublisherBookNotesISBN (Pages)
"In the mind of the beholder: The interpretation comparison model of accessibility effects"2007D.A. Stapel; J. SulsPsychology PressAssimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology(313–327)
"Priming as proxy: Understanding the subjectivity of social life"2011K. C. Klauer; A. Voss; C. StahlGuilford PublicationsCognitive Methods in Social PsychologyRepublished 2012 in abridged form with Stapel chapter excised. [42] ISBN   978-1-4625-0913-3 (148–183)
"From (Unconscious) Perception to Emotion: A Global-to-Specific Unfolding View of Emotional Responding"2011I. Nyklíček; A. Vingerhoets; M. ZeelenbergSpringerEmotion Regulation and Well-Being(Co-authored). Included in Retraction Watch listing ISBN   978-1-4419-6952-1

The Noort committee, examining publications stemming from Stapel's time at the University of Groningen, also considered a number of book chapters in edited works suspect. In the case of these works, having less surviving original data available to examine, the Noort committee concluded with less certainty only "evidence of fraud". In the Flawed Science report they note the following chapters, under the heading: "The following book chapters are (partly) based on findings of articles, in which the Committees have found evidence of fraud:" [43]

"Coping with chaos"

The first journal article retraction occurred a month after Tilburg University announced that it had found evidence of fraud in Stapel's work. In December 2011, the journal Science posted a retraction notice for Stapel's co-authored paper entitled "Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination". [44] The journal expressed initial concern regarding the paper's validity on 1 November. [45] [46] The retraction statement in Science says: [47]

Our report "Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination" reported the effects of the physical environment on human stereotyping and discriminatory behavior. On 31 October 2011, the University of Tilburg held a press conference to announce findings of their investigation into possible data fraud on the part of author Stapel. These findings of the university's interim report included fabrication of data in this Science paper. Therefore, we are retracting the paper, with apologies from author Stapel. Coauthor Lindenberg was in no way involved in the generation of the data, and agrees to the retraction of the paper.

Following the retraction, coauthor of the "Chaos" paper, Siegwart Lindenberg, told the journal in an email, "Stapel's doing had caught me as much by surprise as it did anybody else. I never had any suspicion. He was a very trusted man, dean of the faculty, brilliant, successful, no indications for me to be distrustful. In this, I was not the only one. I also had no trouble with the results of the experiments." [45]

Selfishness in carnivores

The research result, obtained by Stapel and co-workers Roos Vonk and Marcel Zeelenberg, that carnivores are more selfish than vegetarians, which was widely publicized in Dutch media, [48] was suspected and later turned out to be based on falsified data. [49] The research result had not yet been published in a scientific journal; only a press bulletin was released. [50]

Other publications

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ A longer excerpt from Stapel's response to the joint committees' interim report, in the original Dutch with English translation, follows: [lower-alpha 2]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientific misconduct</span> Violation of codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in scientific research

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research. It is violation of scientific integrity: violation of the scientific method and of research ethics in science, including in the design, conduct, and reporting of research.

The Schön scandal concerns German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparently successful experiments with semiconductors that were discovered later to be fraudulent. Before he was exposed, Schön had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics and the Braunschweig Prize in 2001, as well as the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002, all of which were later rescinded. He was also supposed to receive the William L. McMillan Award from the University of Illinois in 2002, but due to the intervention of Daniel C. Ralph of Cornell University, Schön was never given the award.

In academic publishing, a retraction is a mechanism by which a published paper in an academic journal is flagged for being seriously flawed to the extent that their results and conclusions can no longer be relied upon. Retracted articles are not removed from the published literature but marked as retracted. In some cases it may be necessary to remove an article from publication, such as when the article is clearly defamatory, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a serious health risk to the general public.

Tilburg University is a public research university specializing in the social and behavioral sciences, economics, law, business sciences, theology and humanities, located in Tilburg in the southern part of the Netherlands.

A lack of oversight and a lack of proper training for scientists have led to the rise of plagiarism and research misconduct in India. India does not have a statutory body to deal with scientific misconduct in academia, like the Office of Research Integrity in the US, and hence cases of plagiarism are often dealt in ad-hoc fashion with different routes being followed in different cases. In most cases, a public and media outcry leads to an investigation either by institutional authorities or by independent enquiry committees. Plagiarists have in some cases been suspended, removed or demoted. However, no fixed route has been prescribed to monitor such activities. This has led to calls for establishment of an independent ethics body.

Paolo Macchiarini is a thoracic surgeon and former regenerative medicine researcher who became known for research fraud and manipulative behavior. He was convicted of research-related crimes in Italy and Sweden.

Joachim Boldt is a German anesthesiologist who fabricated or falsified data, including those reporting clinical trial results.

Scientific Reports is a peer-reviewed open-access scientific mega journal published by Nature Portfolio, covering all areas of the natural sciences. The journal was established in 2011. The journal states that their aim is to assess solely the scientific validity of a submitted paper, rather than its perceived importance, significance, or impact.

Roosje (Roos) Vonk is a Dutch professor of social psychology at the Radboud University in Nijmegen author, and motivational speaker.

Milena Penkowa is a Danish neuroscientist who was a professor at the Panum Institute at the University of Copenhagen from 2009–2010. In 2010 she was convicted of fraud and embezzlement of funds from The Danish Society of Neuroscience. In the same year, she was suspended by the University of Copenhagen and consequently resigned her professorship. In 2012, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded that she had been guilty of scientific misconduct. As of 2020 Penkowa has had nine of her research publications retracted, and four others have received expressions of concern.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Retraction Watch</span> Blog covering scientific paper retractions

Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers and on related topics. The blog was launched in August 2010 and is produced by science writers Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. Its parent organization is the Center for Scientific Integrity, a US 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

Dipak Kumar Das was the director of the Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington and is known for research fraud. His work centered on the beneficial properties of resveratrol, which is found in red wine, but over twenty of his research papers have been since retracted.

Yoshitaka Fujii is a Japanese researcher in anesthesiology, who in 2012 was found to have fabricated data in at least 219 scientific papers, of which 183 have been retracted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Willem Levelt</span> Dutch psycholinguist

Willem Johannes Maria (Pim) Levelt is a Dutch psycholinguist. He is a researcher of human language acquisition and speech production. He developed a comprehensive theory of the cognitive processes involved in the act of speaking, including the significance of the "mental lexicon". Levelt was the founding director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen. He also served as president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences between 2002 and 2005, of which he has been a member since 1978.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephan Lewandowsky</span> Australian psychologist (born 1958)

Stephan Lewandowsky is an Australian psychologist. He has worked in both the United States and Australia, and is currently based at the University of Bristol, UK, where he is the chair of cognitive psychology at the School of Psychological Science. His research, which originally pertained to computer simulations of people's decision-making processes, recently has focused on the public's understanding of science and why people often embrace beliefs that are sharply at odds with scientific evidence.

Stapel may refer to:

Bharat B. Aggarwal is an Indian-American biochemist. His research has been in the areas of cytokines, the role of inflammation in cancer, and the anti-cancer effects of spices and herbs, particularly curcumin. He was a professor in the Department of Clinical Immunology, Bioimmunotherapy, and Experimental Therapeutics at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.

Jonathan Neal Pruitt is a former academic researcher. He was an Associate Professor of behavioral ecology and Canada 150 Research Chair in Biological Dystopias at McMaster University. Pruitt's research focused primarily on animal personalities and the social behavior of spiders and other organisms.

Abida Sophie Jamal is a Canadian endocrinologist and former osteoporosis researcher who was at the centre of a scientific misconduct case in the mid-to-late 2010s. Jamal published a high-profile paper suggesting that the heart medication nitroglycerin was a treatment for osteoporosis, and was later demonstrated to have misrepresented her results. She received a lifetime ban from receiving funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and was named directly in their disclosure report, becoming the first person mentioned by name by the institute for scientific misconduct. Jamal was later stripped of her medical license for two years, regaining it in a controversial 3–2 decision.

References

Reports

Joint reports of the investigating committees:

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 "Diederik Stapel succeeds Theo Verhallen as Dean of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences". Sociale Wetenschappen Newsletter Studenten. Tilburg University. 8 July 2010. Archived from the original on 2 April 2012. Retrieved 5 October 2011– via Tilburg University School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (in English)
  2. ↑ "Levelt: Fraud detected in 55 publications (2013)". UniversOnline.nl. 28 November 2012. Retrieved 1 March 2013.
  3. ↑ Derksen, Maarten (2021), "A Menagerie of Imposters and Truth-Tellers: Diederik Stapel and the Crisis in Psychology", The Imposter as Social Theory, Bristol University Press, pp. 53–76, doi:10.1332/policypress/9781529213072.003.0003, ISBN   9781529213072
  4. 1 2 Palus, Shannon (8 December 2015). "Diederik Stapel now has 58 retractions". Retraction Watch. Center for Scientific Integrity. Retrieved 22 March 2019.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Bhattacharjee, Yudhijith (26 April 2013). "The Mind of a Con Man". The New York Times. First published in the Sunday Magazine by the NYT. Archived from the original on 30 August 2023. Retrieved 28 September 2023.
  6. ↑ Abma, Ruud (2012). Changes in publication culture and the Stapel fraud case. Second Joint Meeting of Cheiron and the European Society for the History of the Human Sciences, 18–22 July, 2012. Montreal: European Society for the History of the Human Sciences – via academia.edu. (Conference program; abstracts: p. 50)
  7. ↑
  8. ↑ Flawed Science 2012, p. 39.
  9. ↑ "Career Trajectory Award Recipients". Society of Experimental Social Psychology . Retrieved 1 November 2011.
  10. ↑ "Stapel doet vrijwillig afstand van doctorstitel – Binnenland – VK". de Volkskrant. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
  11. ↑ "Prof. Diederik Stapel suspended" (Press release). Tilburg University. 7 September 2011. Archived from the original on 2 April 2012. Retrieved 17 September 2011.
  12. ↑ Enserink, Martin (7 September 2011). "Dutch university sacks social psychologist over faked data". Science . Archived from the original on 30 September 2011. Retrieved 17 September 2011.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interim Levelt Report 2011.
  14. 1 2 3 "First committee findings damn fraudulent Tilburg professor". Dutchnews.nl. 27 March 2012.
  15. ↑ "Commissie Levelt". Tilburg University (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 24 September 2023.
  16. ↑ "Investigations website – Home". Stapel Investigation: Joint Tilburg – Groningen – Amsterdam investigation of the publications by Mr. Stapel. Archived from the original on 31 July 2012.
  17. ↑ "Diederik Stapel heeft nooit excuses aangeboden". NU.nl (in Dutch). 28 March 2012.
  18. ↑ "Hoe heeft Stapel de wetenschappelijke wereld voor de gek kunnen houden?". de Volkskrant (in Dutch). 28 November 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012.
  19. ↑ Gonzalez, Robbie (2 November 2011). "Psychologist admits to faking dozens of scientific studies". Gizmodo.
  20. 1 2 Stroebe, Wolfgang; Postmes, Tom; Spears, Russell (November 2012). "Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 7 (6): 670–688. doi:10.1177/1745691612460687. ISSN   1745-6916. PMID   26168129.
  21. ↑ Flawed Science 2012, pp. 7–8.
  22. ↑ "Diederik Stapel: The Lying Dutchman". The Washington Post. 1 November 2011. (Post Opinions). Retrieved 17 January 2012.
  23. ↑ Flawed Science 2012, p. 44.
  24. ↑ Flawed Science 2012, p. 43.
  25. ↑ Interim Levelt Report 2011, p. 9.
  26. ↑ Flawed Science 2012, p. 41.
  27. 1 2 Flawed Science 2012.
  28. ↑ "Commissie onderzoekt Amsterdamse werk Stapel". Nieuws en Agenda (in Dutch). Universiteit van Amsterdam. 23 September 2011. Archived from the original on 27 November 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
  29. ↑ Interim Levelt Report 2011, p. 20.
  30. ↑ "UvA onderzoekt mogelijkheid intrekken doctorsgraad Stapel". Nieuws en Agenda (in Dutch). Universiteit van Amsterdam. 31 October 2011. Archived from the original on 4 November 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
  31. ↑ Callaway, Ewen (8 December 2011). "Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities". Nature. 479 (7371): 15. Bibcode:2011Natur.479...15C. doi: 10.1038/479015a . PMID   22051650.
  32. ↑ Interim Levelt Report 2011, p. 6.
  33. ↑ Interim Levelt Report 2011, pp. 6–7.
  34. ↑ Frank Huiskamp (28 June 2013). "Diederik Stapel treft schikking met justitie om vervolging te voorkomen". NRC Handelsblad (in Dutch). Retrieved 13 July 2013.
  35. ↑ Bhattacharjee, Yudhijith (28 June 2013). "Stapel Gets Community Service for Fabricating Studies". Science Insider. Archived from the original on 6 July 2013. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
  36. ↑ "Stapel betuigt openlijk 'diepe spijt'". Brabants Dagblad . 31 October 2011. Archived from the original on 29 May 2012.
  37. ↑ Borsboom, Denny; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan (January 2013). "[Book Review]Derailed: The Rise and Fall of Diederik Stapel" (PDF). Observer. Vol. 26, no. 1. Association for Psychological Science. pp. 31, 33.
  38. ↑ Jarrett, Christian (9 February 2013). "News: Stapel – final report". BPS Updates. British Psychological Society. Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  39. ↑ Stapel, Diederik (15 November 2016). Faking Science: A True Story of Academic Fraud (PDF). Version 1.10. Translated by Brown, Nicholas J. L. p. 215. Translated from the Dutch, in which it appeared with the title, Ontsporing. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  40. ↑ Ivan Nyklíček; Ad Vingerhoets; Marcel Zeelenberg, eds. (2011). Emotion Regulation and Well-Being. New York; Heidelberg: Springer. ISBN   978-1-4419-6952-1.
  41. ↑ Flawed Science 2012, pp. 25–27, 76.
  42. ↑ K. C. Klauer; A. Voss; C. Stahl, eds. (9 November 2012), Cognitive Methods in Social Psychology (Abridged first ed.), New York: Guilford Press, ISBN   978-1-4625-0913-3. Publisher's note: "The hardcover edition of this book contained a chapter titled 'Priming as Proxy: Understanding the Subjectivity of Social Life' by D. A. Stapel. This chapter has been retracted by joint decision of the publisher and the book's editors."
  43. ↑ Flawed Science 2012, pp. 81–82, 95.
  44. ↑ Marcus, Adam (1 December 2011), "Science drops other shoe in Stapel case, retracts recent paper on chaos", Retraction Watch, The Center for Scientific Integrity, retrieved 17 January 2012
  45. 1 2 Callaway, Ewen (1 December 2011). "Dutch psychology fraudster issues first retraction". Nature News Blog. Retrieved 17 January 2012.
  46. ↑ Alberts, Bruce (11 November 2011). "Editorial Expression of Concern". Science . 334 (6057): 760. Bibcode:2011Sci...334Q.760A. doi:10.1126/science.1216027. PMID   22045832. S2CID   28061110.
  47. ↑ Stapel, D. A.; Lindenberg, Siegwart (2 December 2011). "Retraction". Science . 334 (6060): 1202. doi:10.1126/science.334.6060.1202-a. PMID   22144595.
  48. ↑
  49. ↑ "Meat eaters absolved, professor in the dock". DutchNews.nl. 8 September 2011. Retrieved 17 September 2011;(in English).
  50. ↑ Vanheste, Tomas (13 September 2011). "Onder psychologen" [Among psychologists]. Vrij Nederland (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 22 February 2013. Retrieved 31 October 2011.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.