does social psychology really have more retractions?

Hot Topic: Assuring the Quality of Psychological Research

Research Misconduct and the Development of Article Retractions in Psychology and its Fields

Armin Günther

50. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie

Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany18.–22. Sept. 2016

Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID)

Trier, Germany

Research misconduct and the development of article retractions in Psychology and its fields by Armin Günther is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Retracted publications per 10,000 published publications by year in PubMed and PsycINFO.

PubMed data by Saunders, N. (13.9.2016). PubMed retractions report. Retrieved from https://rpubs.com/neilfws/65778

Increasing retraction rates

Retracted publications per 10,000 published publications by year in PubMed and PsycINFO.

PubMed data by Saunders, N. (13.9.2016). PubMed retractions report. Retrieved from https://rpubs.com/neilfws/65778

Increasing retraction rates

Why does this happen?Two explanations:

1. Declining quality of published articles

(cf. Fanelli 2013: “growing misconduct hypothesis”)

2. Increasing sensibility of scholarly communication system

(cf. Fanelli 2013: “stronger system hypothesis”)

Stefanie Kara (7.5.2016). Zu schön, um wahr zu sein. ZEIT-Online, retrieved from http://www.zeit.de/2015/17/sozialpsychologie-professor-daten-manipulation

Are some fields of psychological research more affected than other?

• Is Social Psychology affected more by research misconduct?

Enserink, M. (28.11.2012). Final report: Stapel affair points to bigger problems in social psychology. Science, retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/11/final-report-stapel-affair-points-bigger-problems-social-psychology

Are some fields of psychological research more affected than other?

• Is Social Psychology affected more by research misconduct?

Method: Variables

Source: JPSP 103, 605.

Reason for retraction: ……Accused author: ……Subject field(s): ……

Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012

Reason for retraction: ……Accused author: ……Subject field(s): ……

Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012

Method: Variables

Source: JPSP 103, 605.

Reasons for article retractions1 Fraud Data fraud; data falsification; biasing design

2 Plagiarism Plagiarism; self-plagiarism, duplicate publication

3 Other misconduct e.g., authorship issues; legal issues etc.

4 „Error“ Honest error; dubious error (maybe unproven misconduct)

5 Publisher error e.g., article published in wrong issue or wrong journal

6 Other reasons Not matching any other category

Method: Variables

Reason for retraction: FraudAccused author: ……Subject field(s): ……

Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012

Source: JPSP 103, 605.

Method: Variables

Source: JPSP 103, 605.

Reason for retraction: FraudAccused author: Smeesters, DirkSubject field(s): ……

Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012

Reason for retraction: FraudAccused author: Smeesters, DirkSubject field(s): ……

Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012

Method: Variables

Source: JPSP 103, 605.

PsycINFO content classification21** General Psychology

22** Psychometrics & Statistics & Methodology

23** Human Experimental Psychology

24** Animal Experimental & Comparative Psychology

25** Physiological Psychology & Neuroscience

26** Psychology & The Humanities

27** Communication Systems

28** Developmental Psychology

29** Social Processes & Social Issues

30** Social Psychology

31** Personality Psychology

32** Psychological & Physical Disorders

33** Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention

34** Professional Psychological & Health Personnel Issues

35** Educational Psychology

36** Industrial & Organizational Psychology

37** Sport Psychology & Leisure

38** Military Psychology

39** Consumer Psychology

40** Engineering & Environmental Psychology

41** Intelligent Systems

42** Forensic Psychology & Legal Issues

Method: Variables

Source: JPSP 103, 605.

Reason for retraction: FraudAccused author: Smeesters, DirkSubject field(s): Personality Psychology [31** ]

Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012

Results: Development of retractions and reasons for retractions

How shape authors with very high numbers of retractions (outliers) the overall picture?

D. Stapel

Most authors have one, nearly all less than five articles retracted, one author (D. Stapel) more than 50, accounting for more than 20% of all retractions because of misconduct in the data. (Base: PsycINFO)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of retracted articles per author

Number of authorswith retractions

Results: Types of research misconduct

General Psychology

Psychometrics & Statistics & Methodology

Human Experimental Psychology

Animal Experimental & Comparative Psychology

Physiological Psychology & Neuroscience

Psychology & The Humanities

Communication Systems

Developmental Psychology

Social Processes & Social Issues

Social Psychology

Personality Psychology

Psychological & Physical Disorders

Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention

Professional Psychological & Health Personnel Issues

Educational Psychology

Industrial & Organizational Psychology

Sport Psychology & Leisure

Military Psychology

Consumer Psychology

Engineering & Environmental Psychology

Intelligent Systems

Forensic Psychology & Legal Issues

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

1

5

15

3

41

0

3

7

9

34

18

41

36

4

7

11

3

0

9

7

3

1

Results: Research misconduct in different fields of psychology

Number of retracted articles

General Psychology

Psychometrics & Statistics & Methodology

Human Experimental Psychology

Animal Experimental & Comparative Psychology

Physiological Psychology & Neuroscience

Psychology & The Humanities

Communication Systems

Developmental Psychology

Social Processes & Social Issues

Social Psychology

Personality Psychology

Psychological & Physical Disorders

Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention

Professional Psychological & Health Personnel Issues

Educational Psychology

Industrial & Organizational Psychology

Sport Psychology & Leisure

Military Psychology

Consumer Psychology

Engineering & Environmental Psychology

Intelligent Systems

Forensic Psychology & Legal Issues

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

1

5

15

3

41

0

3

7

9

34

18

41

36

4

7

11

3

0

9

7

3

1

General Psychology

Psychometrics & Statistics & Methodology

Human Experimental Psychology

Animal Experimental & Comparative Psychology

Physiological Psychology & Neuroscience

Psychology & The Humanities

Communication Systems

Developmental Psychology

Social Processes & Social Issues

Social Psychology

Personality Psychology

Psychological & Physical Disorders

Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention

Professional Psychological & Health Personnel Issues

Educational Psychology

Industrial & Organizational Psychology

Sport Psychology & Leisure

Military Psychology

Consumer Psychology

Engineering & Environmental Psychology

Intelligent Systems

Forensic Psychology & Legal Issues

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

1

4

8

3

36

0

3

5

8

5

4

37

29

4

7

8

3

0

6

5

3

1

Results: Research misconduct in different fields of psychology

Number of retracted authors

Results: Research misconduct in different fields of psychology

Results: Research misconduct in different fields of psychology

Results: Concluding remarks

• Are article retractions a useful tool for assuring the quality of psychological research? No. Retractions mostly indicate, that processes of quality control have failed.

• Do retractions destroy knowledge and the advancement of knowledge?Generally not. We constantly re-build our knowledge in the light of new (positive or negative) evidence, For this, we need procedures and intelligent tools to update our knowledgebase.

• Why do retractions matter at all?The real problem with retractions is not, that single research results may be invalidated. The real problem is that – if retractions are based on research misconduct – they may undermine trust in the general reliability and integrity of research, which is fundamental for building scientific knowledge.

References

• Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic

review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

• Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med, 10(12),

e1001563. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563

Contact:

Armin Günther

Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID)

armin.guenther@zpid.de