The Wansink Dossier: An Overview

UPDATE: Be sure to also read the two papers we published on this investigation:

  1. Statistical heartburn: An attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab (published at BMC Nutrition)
  2. Statistical infarction: A postmortem of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab pizza publications (pre-print at PeerJ)

As well as this report by Eric Robinson with similar conclusions regarding the (highly) questionable nature of the discussed research:

  1. The science behind Smarter Lunchrooms (pre-print at PeerJ)

On November 21, 2016, Brian Wansink published his blog post “The Grad Student Who Never Said ‘No‘” (note: BW has deleted the post, so I had to link to a cached version) , which received heavy criticism for its unconventional career advice as well as the described questionable research methods. A lot has happened since it was posted four months ago. Starting with our pre-print describing over 150 errors in 4 papers, there is a now ever-increasing list of research articles (co-)authored by Brian Wansink which have been criticized for containing serious errors, reporting inconsistencies, impossibilities, plagiarism, and data duplications.

To the best of my knowledge, there are currently:

  • 45 publications from Brian Wansink which are alleged to contain minor to very serious issues,
  • which have been cited over 4000 times,
  • are published in over 25 different journals, and in 8 books,
  • spanning over 20 years of research.

To the best of my knowledge, this investigation has resulted in:

  • An in-depth response  from Brian Wansink regarding the initial 4 so-called ‘pizza-papers’ which started this investigation,
  • The journals of papers were contacted by Brian Wansink, presumably regarding the massive amounts of identical texts
  • Cornell University stated that they“conducted an internal review to determine the extent to which a formal investigation of research integrity was appropriate”. Presumably this refers only to the 4 pizza papers. They state that “while numerous instances of inappropriate data handling and statistical analysis in four published papers were alleged, such errors did not constitute scientific misconduct”. Cornell University supposedly “takes matters of academic integrity seriously”.
  • The following article has been retracted:
  • The following articles have received a correction which address (some of) the issues:
  • As far as I can tell, the remaining 40 papers remain in their uncorrected state in the scientific literature.

Goal of this post

This post aims to provide an up-to-date list of these articles with a brief description of the critiques. Although I am personally involved in some of these investigations, I cannot take responsibility for the veracity of the critiques listed here. Nevertheless I aim to only report what I believe is justified, so please comment when you spot any errors. Importantly, this is not a witch hunt nor a personal attack, but an effort to do my part in improving the quality of the scientific literature. Feedback is welcome.

See the below table for an overview of all the papers listing alleged minor “+” and severe issues “++”. When there is some uncertainty about the errors, or when a correction has been issued, the errors will be reported as (+) or (++). Scroll down even further down to get a more detailed summary of the issues per paper.

Note: Some issues (especially self-plagiarism and data duplication) are related to multiple articles, such that a single issue might be reported multiple times.

Publication Citations Self-Plagiarism Data Duplication Data Issues Statistical Issues
Wansink & Deshpande (1994). “Out of sight, out of mind”: Pantry stockpiling and brand-usage frequency. 85 ++ ++
Wansink (1994). Antecedents and mediators of eating bouts. 47 ++ + +
Wansink (1994). "Bet You Can't Eat Just one"- What Stimulates Eating Bouts. ++ + +
Wansink & Ray (1997). Developing copy tests that estimate brand usage. 88 +
Wansink, B., Park, S. B., Sonka, S., & Morganosky, M. (2000). How soy labeling influences preference and taste. 77 ++ ++
Wansink & Seed (2001). Making brand loyalty programs succeed. 34 ++ ++
Wansink & Chan (2001). Relation of soy consumption to nutritional knowledge 10 + ++ ++
Wansink & Cheong (2002). Taste profiles that correlate with soy consumption in developing countries. 10 ++ ++ ++ ++
Wansink & Sudman (2002). Predicting the future of consumer panels. 7 +
Wansink, B., & Park, S.-B. (2002). Sensory suggestiveness and labeling: Do soy labels bias taste? 96 ++ ++
Wansink (2003). Profiling nutritional gatekeepers: Three methods for differentiating influential cooks. 47 + +
Wansink, Cheney & Chan (2003). Exploring comfort food preferences across age and gender. 334 ++
Wansink (2003). Developing a cost-effective brand loyalty program.  65 ++ ++
Wansink & Westgren (2003). Profiling taste-motivated segments 18 ++ ++ ++ ++
Wansink (2003).  Response to ‘‘Measuring consumer response to food products’’. Sensory tests that predict consumer acceptance. 30 +
Bradburn, Sudman & Wansink (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design—For market research political polls and social and health questionnaires 891 +
Wansink, Van Ittersum, & Painter (2005). How descriptive food names bias sensory perceptions in restaurants. 204 (+)
Wansink & Kim (2005). Bad popcorn in big buckets: portion size can influence intake as much as taste. 336 +
Wansink, Cardello, & North (2005). Fluid consumption and the potential role of canteen shape in minimizing dehydration. 10 + ++
Wansink, Van Ittersum & Painter (2006). Ice cream illusions: bowls spoons and self-served portion sizes. 262 ++ ++
Wansink, Painter & Lee (2006). The office candy dish: proximity's influence on estimated and actual consumption. 204 ++ ++
Wansink & van Ittersum (2007). Portion size me: Downsizing our consumption norms. 180 +
Wansink & Payne (2008). Eating behavior and obesity at Chinese buffets. 60 (++) (++)
Wansink, Van Ittersum & Werle (2009). How negative experiences shape long-term food preferences. Fifty years from the World War II combat front. 10 ++
Wansink (2010). From mindless eating to mindlessly eating better. 180 +
Just & Wansink (2011). The flat-rate pricing paradox: conflicting effects of “all-you-can-eat” buffet pricing. 58 + ++
Wansink (2011). Mindless eating: Environmental contributors to obesity. 56 ++
Wansink, Van Ittersum & Werle (2011). The lingering impact of negative food experiences: Which World War II veterans won’t eat Chinese food? 28 ++
Wansink (2011). Activism research: Designing transformative lab and field studies. 102 +
Wansink, Just, Payne & Klinger (2012). Attractive names sustain increased vegetable intake in schools. 101 + ++ ++
Wansink, Just & Payne (2012). Can branding improve school lunches? 38 ++ ++
Wansink (2012). Measuring food intake in field studies. 170 +
Zampollo, Kniffin, Wansink & Shimizu (2012). Food plating preferences of children: The importance of presentation on desire for diversity. 37 + ++
Wansink (2012). Hidden persuaders: Environmental contributors to obesity. 17 +
Wansink (2013). Convenient attractive and normative: The CAN approach to making children slim by design. 13 +
Wansink & van Ittersum (2013). Portion size me: Plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. 54 +
Just, Sigirci & Wansink (2014). Lower buffet prices lead to less taste satisfaction. 13 ++ ++ ++
Just & Wansink (2015). Fast food, soft drink and candy intake is unrelated to body mass index for 95% of American adults 4 + +
Just, Sigirci & Wansink (2015). Peak-end pizza: prices delay evaluations of quality. 1 (++) (++) (++)
Wansink (2015). Change their choice! Changing behavior using the CAN approach and activism research. 26 ++
Wansink (2015). Slim by design: Moving from Can’t to CAN. 5 +
Sigirci & Wansink (2015). Low Prices and High Regret: How Pricing Influences Regret at All-You-Can-Eat Buffets. 1 ++ ++ ++
Musicus, Tal & Wansink (2015). Eyes in the Aisles: Why Is Cap’n Crunch Looking Down at My Child? 7 + ++
Kniffin, Sigirci & Wansink (2016). Eating heavily: men eat more in the company of women. 4 (++) (++) (++)
Sigirci, Rockmore & Wansink (2016). How traumatic violence permanently changes shopping behavior. 0 + ++

Wansink, B., & Deshpande, R. (1994). “Out of sight, out of mind”: Pantry stockpiling and brand-usage frequency. Marketing letters5(1), 91-100.

Citations: 85

Based on the SPRITE technique, the range of possible datasets underlying the summary statistics were calculated. Taking the reported values at face value there are various impossibilities and highly suspicious dataset issues. When assuming that the authors made several minor mistakes such as writing SEM while actually meaning SD, the issues become less severe and numerous but are still not completely solved. Either way, however the summary statistics are interpreted they are inconsistent with the described test statistics. Furthermore, results reported in tables are inconsistent with results reported in the text.

Summary: Even assuming several relatively harmless mistakes, the paper contains a range of minor to severe inconsistencies and highly implausible data.

Source: https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/sprite-case-study-3-soup-is-good-albeit-extremely-confusing-food-96ea526c488d


Wansink, B. (1994). Antecedents and mediators of eating bouts. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal23(2), 166-182.

Citations: 47

About 35-40% of this paper has been recycled from “Wansink, B. (1994). Bet you can’t eat just one: What stimulates eating bouts. Journal of  Food Products Marketing1(4), 3–24.”. Both articles appear to describe the exact same study. However, there are curious discrepancies and numerical differences which should not be present given that it is based on the same study. Also contains factually wrong F and p values.

Summary: Self-plagiarism and statistical errors

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-final-maybe-two-articles-from-food.html


Journal of Food Products Marketing1(4), 3-24.

Citations: 0

About 35-40% of this paper has been recycled from “Wansink, B. (1994). Antecedents and mediators of eating bouts. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal23(2), 166-182.”. Both articles appear to describe the exact same study. However, there are curious discrepancies and numerical differences which should not be present given that it is based on the same study. Also contains factually wrong F and p values.

Summary: Self-plagiarism and statistical errors

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-final-maybe-two-articles-from-food.html


Wansink, B., & Ray, M. L. (1997).  Developing copy tests that estimate brand usage.  In W. Wells (Ed.), Measuring advertising effectiveness (pp. 359–370). Cambridge, MA: Lexington Books.

Citations: 88 (for the book, 0 for this particular chapter)

Self-plagiarism without attribution. The (almost) identical overlap is with the following publications:

  • Wansink, B., & Sudman, S. (2002).  Predicting the future of consumer panels.  Journal of Database Marketing, 9, 301–311.
  • Wansink, B. (2003).  Response to ‘‘Measuring consumer response to food products’’. Sensory tests that predict consumer acceptance.  Food Quality and Preference, 14, 23–26.
  • Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004).  Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design—For market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires (Revised ed.).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Wansink, B. (2012).  Measuring food intake in field studies.  In D. B. Allison and M. L. Baskin (Eds.), Handbook of assessment methods for eating behaviors and weight-related problems: Measures, theories, and research (2nd ed., pp. 327–345). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Summary: Minor issue of repeated self-plagiarism of the Method section.

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B., Park, S. B., Sonka, S., & Morganosky, M. (2000). How soy labeling influences preference and taste.  International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3, 85–94

Citations: 77

This 2000 article is about 50% identical to a 2002 article, as can be seen clearly in the picture:

The 2002 article in question is: Wansink, B., & Park, S.-B. (2002). Sensory suggestiveness and labeling: Do soy labels bias taste? Journal of Sensory Studies 17, 483–491.

In additional to textual self-plagiarism, the method, sample, tables, as well as the results are (nearly) identical.

Note that Wansink has stated that he has reached out to the journal regarding this issue.

Summary: Severe case of textual self-plagiarism and data duplication (re-use).

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2017/03/more-apparent-duplication-from-food-and.html


Wansink, B., & Seed, S. (2001).  Making brand loyalty programs succeed.  Brand Management, 8, 211–222. 

Citations: 34

Serious issue of self-plagiarism which goes beyond the Method section, as you can see in the picture:

Furthermore, both papers mention substantially different sample sizes (153 vs. 643) but both have a table with results which are basically entirely identical. The other article is: Wansink, B. (2003).  Developing a cost-effective brand loyalty program.  Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 301–309.

Furthermore, Table 4 of the 2001 article and Figure 3 of the 2003 article seem to provide identical information.

Finally, there are stark differences between a draft version of the 2003 article and the final version, such as removed/changed text and data describing a relevant effect.

Summary: Serious self-plagiarism, a serious case of repeatedly publishing about (almost) identical data with apparently unexplainable differences.

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B., & Chan, N. (2001). Relation of soy consumption to nutritional knowledge. Journal of Medicinal Food4, 145–150.

Citations: 10

A range of numerical issues such as inconsistent sample sizes and degrees of freedom, highly improbably data distributions, as well as inconsistent or impossible statistical values.

Additionally, there is an oddity in the apparent similarity of the sample when compared with several other papers:

  • 770 respondents out of 1002 mailed questionnaires send to a random national sample, for a payment of $6
    (this study)
  • 770 respondents out of 1600 mailed questionnaires send to a sample of North Americans, for a payment of $5
    (Wansink, B., Sonka, S. T., & Park, S. B. (2004). Segmentation Approaches that Differentiate Consumption Frequency from Sensory Preference.)
  • 770 respondents out of 2000 mailed questionnaires send to a representative sample from 50 US states, for a payment of $3
    (Wansink, B. (2003). Profiling nutritional gatekeepers: three methods for differentiating influential cooks. Food Quality and Preference14(4), 289-297.)

Summary: Severe data issues, as well as an odd data similarity

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/strange-patterns-in-some-results-from.html


Wansink, B., & Cheong, J. (2002). Taste profiles that correlate with soy consumption in
developing countries. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition1, 276–278.

Citations: 10

A range of inconsistencies with the statistical values. In addition, a range of reported values are impossible or highly improbable.

About 40% of the text in article is identical to another paper: Wansink, B., & Westgren, R. (2003). Profiling taste-motivated segments. Appetite41, 323–327. Some of the duplicated text is in the Method section, but it also includes parts of the Results and Discussion sections. Both studies use (mostly) the same questionnaire, allowing the results to be compared. Surprisingly, while the two papers supposedly reflect two entirely different studies in two different samples, there is a near perfect correlation of 0.97 between the mean values in the two studies.

Finally, the distribution of digits is surprisingly different from one what would expect given real random data. That is, it is highly unlikely that the digits from the numbers reported in these papers are the result of a random process (such as random sampling).

Summary: Severe data issues, textual self-plagiarism, as well as a range of ‘highly surprising data oddities’

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/strange-patterns-in-some-results-from.html


Wansink, B., & Sudman, S. (2002).  Predicting the future of consumer panels.  Journal of Database Marketing, 9, 301–311.

Citations: 7

Self-plagiarism without attribution. The (almost) identical overlap is with the following publications:

  • Wansink, B., & Ray, M. L. (1997).  Developing copy tests that estimate brand usage.  In W. Wells (Ed.), Measuring advertising effectiveness (pp. 359–370). Cambridge, MA: Lexington Books.
  • Wansink, B. (2003).  Response to ‘‘Measuring consumer response to food products’’. Sensory tests that predict consumer acceptance.  Food Quality and Preference, 14, 23–26.
  • Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design—For market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires(Revised ed.).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Wansink, B. (2012).  Measuring food intake in field studies.  In D. B. Allison and M. L. Baskin (Eds.), Handbook of assessment methods for eating behaviors and weight-related problems: Measures, theories, and research (2nd ed., pp. 327–345). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Summary: Minor issue of repeated self-plagiarism of a Method section.

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B., & Park, S.-B. (2002). Sensory suggestiveness and labeling: Do soy labels bias taste? Journal of Sensory Studies 17, 483–491.

Citations: 96

Large sections of text were self-plagiarized from the below article; the data and results are also mostly the same, as can be read in the entry from this article:

Wansink, B., Park, S. B., Sonka, S., & Morganosky, M. (2000). How soy labeling influences preference and taste.  International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3, 85–94.

UPDATE 2017-04-06: This paper is being retracted, according to Wansink’s statement.

Summary: Severe case of textual self-plagiarism and data duplication (re-use).

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2017/03/more-apparent-duplication-from-food-and.html


Wansink, B. (2003).  Profiling nutritional gatekeepers: Three methods for differentiating influential cooks.  Food Quality and Preference14, 289–297.

Citations: 47

A total of 415 numbers were reported to two decimal places, which have the following distribution of last digits:

This is highly unlikely (and statistically significant) given the assuming that all digits are the result of a random process. This probably is about 0.0065.

An additional oddity is the apparent similarity of the sample when compared with several other papers:

  • 770 respondents out of 2000 mailed questionnaires send to a representative sample from 50 US states, for a payment of $3
    (this study)
  • 770 respondents out of 1002 mailed questionnaires send to a random national sample, for a payment of $6
    (Wansink, B., & Chan, N. (2001). Relation of soy consumption to nutritional knowledge. Journal of Medicinal Food, 4, 145–150.)
  • 770 respondents out of 1600 mailed questionnaires send to a sample of North Americans, for a payment of $5
    (Wansink, B., Sonka, S. T., & Park, S. B. (2004). Segmentation Approaches that Differentiate Consumption Frequency from Sensory Preference.)

Summary: Various odd, but relatively minor issues.

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/more-problematic-articles-from-food-and.html


Wansink, B., Cheney, M. M., & Chan, N. (2003). Exploring comfort food preferences across age and gender. Physiology & Behavior, 79(4), 739-747.

Citations: 334

Using the provided summary statistics such as mean, test statistics, and additional given constraints it was calculated that the data set underlying this study is highly suspicious. For example, given the information which is provided in the article the response data for a Likert scale question should look like this:

Furthermore, although this is the most extreme possible version given the constraints described in the article, it is still not consistent with the provided information.

In addition, there are more issues with impossible or highly implausible data.

Summary: Serious issues of highly implausible to outright impossible data, given the provided information in the article.

Sourcehttps://medium.com/@jamesheathers/sprite-case-study-2-the-case-of-the-polarizing-porterhouse-and-some-updates-7dfe4d1564fc#.oixynil48


Wansink, B. (2003).  Developing a cost-effective brand loyalty program.  Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 301–309.

Citations: 65

See the entry for the 2001 article “Making brand loyalty programs succeed”.

Summary: Serious self-plagiarism, a serious case of repeatedly publishing about (almost) identical data with apparently unexplainable differences.

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B., & Westgren, R. (2003). Profiling taste-motivated segments. Appetite41, 323–327.

Citations: 18

A range of inconsistencies with the statistical values. In addition, a range of reported values are impossible or highly improbable.

In addition, there is a substantial overlap in the text with another paper: Wansink, B., & Cheong, J. (2002). Taste profiles that correlate with soy consumption in
developing countries. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition1, 276–278.

These papers do not only share the same text; there is a wide range of odd similarities in terms of the data, while the samples are supposed to be different. See the entry for the other article for more information.

Summary: Severe data issues, textual self-plagiarism, as well as a range of ‘highly surprising data oddities’

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/strange-patterns-in-some-results-from.html


Wansink, B. (2003).  Response to ‘‘Measuring consumer response to food products’’. Sensory tests that predict consumer acceptance.  Food Quality and Preference, 14, 23–26.

Citations: 30

Self-plagiarism without attribution. The (almost) identical overlap is with the following publications:

  • Wansink, B., & Ray, M. L. (1997).  Developing copy tests that estimate brand usage.  In W. Wells (Ed.), Measuring advertising effectiveness (pp. 359–370). Cambridge, MA: Lexington Books.
  • Wansink, B., & Sudman, S. (2002).  Predicting the future of consumer panels.  Journal of Database Marketing, 9, 301–311.
  • Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004).  Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design—For market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires(Revised ed.).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Wansink, B. (2012).  Measuring food intake in field studies.  In D. B. Allison and M. L. Baskin (Eds.), Handbook of assessment methods for eating behaviors and weight-related problems: Measures, theories, and research (2nd ed., pp. 327–345). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Summary: Minor issue of repeated self-plagiarism of a Method section.

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004).  Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design—For market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires(Revised ed.).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Citations: 891

Self-plagiarism without attribution. The (almost) identical overlap is with the following publications:

  • Wansink, B., & Ray, M. L. (1997).  Developing copy tests that estimate brand usage.  In W. Wells (Ed.), Measuring advertising effectiveness (pp. 359–370). Cambridge, MA: Lexington Books.
  • Wansink, B., & Sudman, S. (2002).  Predicting the future of consumer panels.  Journal of Database Marketing, 9, 301–311.
  • Wansink, B. (2003).  Response to ‘‘Measuring consumer response to food products’’. Sensory tests that predict consumer acceptance.  Food Quality and Preference, 14, 23–26.
  • Wansink, B. (2012).  Measuring food intake in field studies.  In D. B. Allison and M. L. Baskin (Eds.), Handbook of assessment methods for eating behaviors and weight-related problems: Measures, theories, and research (2nd ed., pp. 327–345). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Summary: Minor issue of repeated self-plagiarism of a Method section.

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B., & Kim, J. (2005). Bad popcorn in big buckets: portion size can influence intake as much as taste. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 37(5), 242-245.

Citations: 336

Moviegoers are fed fresh or 14-day old popcorn. The paper contains various reporting errors such as impossible df and inconsistent ANOVA values.

Issues such as incorrectly reported degrees of freedom and ANOVA results.

Summary: Relatively minor reporting inconsistencies (which should be corrected)

Source: https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/the-donald-trump-of-food-research-49e2bc7daa41#.9qr5uv593


Wansink, B., Cardello, A., & North, J. (2005). Fluid consumption and the potential role of canteen shape in minimizing dehydration. Military Medicine170, 871–873. 

Citations: 10

All of the reported test statistics in Table 1 are inconsistent with the means and standard deviations to which they are meant to correspond. Degrees of freedom are also consistently misreported. There is also p value which is reported as significant but, based on the test statistics, is actually not significant.

Summary: Various issues with the statistics; I am going to classify this as ‘severe’ issues, but that can be contested.

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/more-problematic-articles-from-food-and.html


Wansink, B., Van Ittersum, K., & Painter, J. E. (2005). How descriptive food names bias sensory perceptions in restaurants. Food quality and preference, 16(5), 393-400.

Citations: 204

There are GRIM inconsistent values in Table 1 and Table 2. However, these inconsistencies are based on certain assumptions which might not be true. Specifically, it depends which analyses were used and there are possible analyses which could potentially result in the reported values.

UPDATE (July 14, 2017): A correction has been issued, which explains some of the issues but also states that “due to the original data not being available, the true values are unknown”. As this study is apparently based on now non-existent data, and because not all issues have been solved I am maintaining my position of “potentially inconsistencies”.

Summary: Potentially inconsistent values, and there is no data to confirm them.

Sourcehttps://medium.com/@OmnesRes/the-donald-trump-of-food-research-49e2bc7daa41


 

Wansink, B., Van Ittersum, K., & Painter, J. E. (2006). Ice cream illusions: bowls, spoons, and self-served portion sizes. American journal of preventive medicine, 31(3), 240-243.

Citations: 262

A large amount of inconsistent/impossible means and standard deviations, as well as inconsistent ANOVA results, as can be seen in the picture.

Summary: Serious issues with (reporting) accuracy/veracity.

Source: https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/the-donald-trump-of-food-research-49e2bc7daa41#.9qr5uv593


Wansink, B., Painter, J. E., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The office candy dish: proximity’s influence on estimated and actual consumption. International journal of obesity, 30(5), 871-875.

Citations: 204

A large amount of inconsistent/impossible means and standard deviations, as can be seen in the picture.

Summary: Serious issues with (reporting) accuracy/veracity.

Source: https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/the-donald-trump-of-food-research-49e2bc7daa41#.9qr5uv593


Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2007). Portion size me: Downsizing our consumption norms. Journal of the American Dietetic Association107, 1103–1106.

Citations: 180

Contains about 300 words which are almost verbatim identical to a section in the following paper (without attribution):

Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2013). Portion size me: Plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied19, 320–332.

Summary: Minor issue of self-plagiarism

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/more-problematic-articles-from-food-and.html


Wansink, B., & Payne, C. R. (2008). Eating behavior and obesity at Chinese buffets. Obesity, 16(8), 1957-1960.

Citations: 60

A large amount of inconsistent/impossible means, as can be seen in the picture.

UPDATE (July 14, 2017): A corrigendum has been issues stating that the actual sample sizes are not the ones reported at the top of the table, but in fact range from 64 to 72, depending on the cell. This wide sample size range makes it impossible to check the consistency of any of these values, so we can no longer conclude that they are wrong.

Summary: Serious issues with (reporting) accuracy/veracity in the original version, but it has been corrected.

Source: https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/the-donald-trump-of-food-research-49e2bc7daa41#.9qr5uv593


Wansink, B., van Ittersum, K., & Werle, C. (2009). How negative experiences shape long-term food preferences. Fifty years from the World War II combat front. Appetite, 52(3), 750-752.

Citations: 10

This article has been recycle into a book chapter. Here is a snapshot of the 2009 article (left) and the 2011 book chapter (right).

Book chapter: Wansink, B., van Ittersum, K., & Werle, C. (2011).  The lingering impact of negative food experiences: Which World War II veterans won’t eat Chinese food?  In V. R. Preedy, R. R. Watson, & C. R. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of behavior, food and nutrition (Vol. 1, pp. 1705-1714). New York, NY: Springer

Summary: Major issue of self-plagiarism?

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B. (2010). From mindless eating to mindlessly eating better. Physiology & Behavior, 100, 454–463. 

Citations: 180

Self-plagiarism without attribution from the following articles:

  • Wansink, B. (2015). Change their choice! Changing behavior using the CAN approach and activism research. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 486–500.
  • Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2013). Portion size me: Plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied19, 320–332.

Summary: Minor issues of self-plagiarism.

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html and http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/more-problematic-articles-from-food-and.html

 


Just, D. R., & Wansink, B. (2011). The flat-rate pricing paradox: conflicting effects of “all-you-can-eat” buffet pricing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 193-200.

Citations: 58

Issues such as erroneous choice of statistical analysis. Also more serious problems such as a large amount of inconsistent/impossible means and standard deviations. Various inconsistencies between different values.

Summary: Combination of minor and more serious issues.

Sources: https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/cornells-alternative-statistics-part-deux-cdb370a70c74#.eslqsu6xb and https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/the-donald-trump-of-food-research-49e2bc7daa41#.9qr5uv593


Wansink, B. (2011).  Mindless eating: Environmental contributors to obesity.  In J. Cawley (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the social science of obesity (pp. 385–414).  New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Citations: 56 (for the book, 1 for this particular chapter)

This book chapter is nearly identical to this one:

Wansink, B. (2012).  Hidden persuaders: Environmental contributors to obesity.  In S. R. Akabas, S. A. Lederman, & B. J. Moore (Eds.), Textbook of obesity: Biological, psychological and cultural influences (pp. 108–122).  Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

About 85-90% of the text is duplicated, word-for-word, as can be clearly seen in this image:

Summary: Massive case of self-plagiarism. Although self-plagiarism of (for example) a Method section is typically fairly accepted, these chapters are almost entirely identical.

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B., van Ittersum, K., & Werle, C. (2011).  The lingering impact of negative food experiences: Which World War II veterans won’t eat Chinese food?  In V. R. Preedy, R. R. Watson, & C. R. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of behavior, food and nutrition (Vol. 1, pp. 1705-1714). New York, NY: Springer

Citations: 28 (for the book, 0 for this particular chapter)

A previously published article has been recycled into this book chapter.

Here is a snapshot of the 2009 article (left) and the 2011 book chapter (right).

Article: Wansink, B., van Ittersum, K., & Werle, C. (2009). How negative experiences shape long-term food preferences: Fifty years from the World War II combat front.  Appetite, 52, 750–752.

Summary: Minor issue of recycling old text / self-plagiarism.

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B. (2011). Activism research: Designing transformative lab and field studies.  In D. G. Mick, S. Pettigrew, C. Pechmann, & J. L. Ozanne (Eds.), Transformative consumer research for personal and collective well-being (pp. 66–88). New York, NY: Routledge.

Citations: 102 (for the book, 0 for this particular chapter)

Some of the text in this publication is duplicated into a later article (Wansink, B. (2015). Change their choice! Changing behavior using the CAN approach and activism research. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 486–500.)

Summary: Minor issue of self-plagiarism.

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B., Just, D. R., Payne, C. R., & Klinger, M. Z. (2012). Attractive names sustain increased vegetable intake in schools. Preventive medicine, 55(4), 330-332.

Citations: 101

Serious problems with extremely unlikely data such as a child eating at least 60 carrots in a single session. Also various inconsistencies with reported sample sizes, incorrectly calculated and/or impossible standard deviations and percentages. In addition, there is a minor issue that part of this publication is duplicated in a later article (Wansink, B. (2015). Change their choice! Changing behavior using the CAN approach and activism research. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 486–500).

Summary: A pattern of various serious issues, mostly concerning statistical results and summary stats.

Sources: https://hackernoon.com/introducing-sprite-and-the-case-of-the-carthorse-child-58683c2bfeb#.69g12vlaf and https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/cornells-alternative-statistics-a8de10e57ff#.gf0k7h47d


Wansink, B., Just, D. R., & Payne, C. R. (2012). Can branding improve school lunches?. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 166(10), 967-968.

Citations: 38

There are various things wrong with this article. The authors repeatedly interpret non significant p values as being significant, as well as miscalculating p values. Their choice of statistical analysis is very questionable. The data are visualized in a very questionable manner which is easily misinterpreted (such that the effects are overestimated). In addition, the visualization is radically different from an earlier version of the same paper, which gave a much more modest impression of the effects. Furthermore, the authors seem to be confused about the participants, as they are school students aged 8-11 but are also called “preliterate children”; in later publication Wansink mentions these are “daycare kids”, and further exaggerates and misreports the size of the effects.

Summary: Multiple serious issues regarding the veracity of the (reported) results, methodology, and visualizations

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.fr/2017/02/a-different-set-of-problems-in-article.html


Wansink, B. (2012).  Measuring food intake in field studies.  In D. B. Allison and M. L. Baskin (Eds.), Handbook of assessment methods for eating behaviors and weight-related problems: Measures, theories, and research (2nd ed., pp. 327–345). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Citations: 170 (for the book, 3 for this particular chapter)

Self-plagiarism without attribution. The (almost) identical overlap is with the following publications:

  • Wansink, B., & Ray, M. L. (1997).  Developing copy tests that estimate brand usage.  In W. Wells (Ed.), Measuring advertising effectiveness (pp. 359–370). Cambridge, MA: Lexington Books.
  • Wansink, B., & Sudman, S. (2002).  Predicting the future of consumer panels.  Journal of Database Marketing, 9, 301–311.
  • Wansink, B. (2003).  Response to ‘‘Measuring consumer response to food products’’. Sensory tests that predict consumer acceptance.  Food Quality and Preference, 14, 23–26.
  • Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004).  Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design—For market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires(Revised ed.).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Summary: Minor issue of self-plagiarism of the Method section

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Zampollo, F., Kniffin, K. M., Wansink, B., & Shimizu, M. (2012). Food plating preferences of children: The importance of presentation on desire for diversity. Acta Paediatrica, 101(1), 61-66.

Citations: 37

The used statistical analyses do not calculate what is of interest and are misinterpreted and misrepresented. In addition, the alpha level for this test is effectively raised to .5 instead of .05. This is further described in the published Letter to the Editor to which the authors replied.

Summary: Serious issue of inappropriate statistical analyses which were flagged years ago but never corrected.

Sourcehttp://persuasivemark.blogspot.be/2017/02/science-first-communication-second.html


Wansink, B. (2012).  Hidden persuaders: Environmental contributors to obesity.  In S. R. Akabas, S. A. Lederman, & B. J. Moore (Eds.), Textbook of obesity: Biological, psychological and cultural influences (pp. 108–122).  Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

Citations: 17 (for the book, 1 for this particular chapter)

This book chapter is nearly identical to this one:

Wansink, B. (2011).  Mindless eating: Environmental contributors to obesity.  In J. Cawley (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the social science of obesity (pp. 385–414).  New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

About 85-90% of the text is duplicated, word-for-word. See the entry for the 2011 paper for an image showing the duplicated text.

Summary: Severe case of self-plagiarism.

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B. (2013). Convenient, attractive, and normative: The CAN approach to making children slim by design. Childhood Obesity, 9, 277-278. 

Citations: 13

Some of the text in this publication is duplicated into a later article (Wansink, B. (2015). Change their choice! Changing behavior using the CAN approach and activism research. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 486–500.)

Summary: Minor issue of self-plagiarism.

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2013). Portion size me: Plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied19, 320–332.

Citations: 54

Contains about 300 words which are almost verbatim identical to a section in the following paper (without attribution):

Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2007). Portion size me: Downsizing our consumption norms. Journal of the American Dietetic Association107, 1103–1106.

Summary: Minor issue of self-plagiarism

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/more-problematic-articles-from-food-and.html


Just, D. R., Sığırcı, Ö., & Wansink, B. (2014). Lower buffet prices lead to less taste satisfaction. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29(5), 362-370.

Citations: 13

Major concerns with a wide range of over 30 errors such as impossible and inconsistent means and statistics, changing sample sizes and degrees of freedom, and other inconsistencies. The reported data comes from the same study as 3 other papers, but this was not mentioned. See this picture from the pre-print for a more thorough list of inconsistencies:

Summary: Very serious concerns about the veracity of this paper and the underlying dataset.

Source: van der Zee, T., Anaya, J., & Brown, N. J. (2017). Statistical heartburn: An attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab (No. e2748v1). PeerJ Preprints.


Just, D. R., & Wansink, B. (2015). Fast food, soft drink and candy intake is unrelated to body mass index for 95% of American adults. Obesity science & practice, 1(2), 126-130.

Citations: 4

The main claim of this paper, as can be read from the title, is that the intake of fast food, soft drink, and candy is unrelated to BMI for 95% of American adults. In addition, because they analyze specific subgroups instead of simply using BMI as a continuous variable the result might be confounded by arbitrary cut-off rules and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, the conclusions are inconsistent with the results, as the relationship between BMI and sweet and salty snacks is reported to be significant.

While the above issues are not necessarily severe, the key issue with the claim is that it is not based on an analysis of actual amounts of food eaten. Instead, the authors rely on self-reports; not of amount of food eaten but of eating episodes, thus ignoring portion sizes.

Summary: The claims can not be based on the presented data. It is unsure how severe the remaining issues are if the claims would be downplayed.

Sourceshttp://www.win-vector.com/blog/2015/11/fast-food-fast-publication and http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-looking-at-american-fast-food-consumption-and-bmi/


Just, D. R., Sigirci, O., & Wansink, B. (2015). Peak-end pizza: prices delay evaluations of quality. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(7), 770-778.

Citations: 1

Major issue with the regression analysis. Also contains inconsistent or impossible degrees of freedoms, means, and standard deviations. The reported data comes from the same study as 3 other papers, but this was not mentioned. See this picture from the pre-print for a more thorough list of inconsistencies:

Update (July 14, 2017): A correction has been issued for this paper, at least according to retraction watch, but the correction is paywalled.

Summary: Very serious concerns about the veracity of this paper and the underlying dataset.

Source: van der Zee, T., Anaya, J., & Brown, N. J. (2017). Statistical heartburn: An attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab (No. e2748v1). PeerJ Preprints.


Wansink, B. (2015). Change their choice! Changing behavior using the CAN approach and activism research. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 486–500.

Citations: 26

This article is the result of copying and pasting from multiple articles, and seems to contain more duplicate than new information.

The image below shows the extent to which this article appears to consist of duplicated text from other publications.

The highlighted text originates from the following articles: (listed in approximate descending order of quantity of apparently duplicated text):

  • Wansink, B. (2011). Activism research: Designing transformative lab and field studies.  In D. G. Mick, S. Pettigrew, C. Pechmann, & J. L. Ozanne (Eds.), Transformative consumer research for personal and collective well-being (pp. 66–88). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Wansink, B. (2013). Convenient, attractive, and normative: The CAN approach to making children slim by design. Childhood Obesity, 9, 277-278.
  • Wansink, B. (2015). Slim by design: Moving from Can’t to CAN.  In C. Roberto (Ed.), Behavioral economics and public health (pp. 237–264). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Wansink, B. (2010). From mindless eating to mindlessly eating better. Physiology & Behavior, 100, 454–463.
  • Wansink, B., Just, D. R., Payne, C. R., & Klinger, M. Z. (2012). Attractive names sustain increased vegetable intake in schools. Preventive Medicine, 55, 330–332.

Summary: Serious case of self-plagiarism; if you would remove the duplicated text there is little left.

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Wansink, B. (2015). Slim by design: Moving from Can’t to CAN.  In C. Roberto (Ed.), Behavioral economics and public health (pp. 237–264). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Citations: 5 (for the book, 3 for this particular chapter)

Some of the text in this publication is duplicated into a later article (Wansink, B. (2015). Change their choice! Changing behavior using the CAN approach and activism research. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 486–500.)

Summary: Minor issue of self-plagiarism.

Source: http://steamtraen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/some-instances-of-apparent-duplicate.html


Sıgırcı, O., & Wansink, B. (2015). Low prices and high regret: how pricing influences regret at all-you-can-eat¨ buffets. BMC Nutrition, 1(1), 36.

Citations: 1

Major concerns with a wide range of over 30 errors such as impossible and inconsistent means and statistics, changing sample sizes and degrees of freedom, and other inconsistencies. The reported data comes from the same study as 3 other papers, but this was not mentioned. See this picture from the pre-print for a more thorough list of inconsistencies:

Summary: Very serious concerns about the veracity of this paper and the underlying dataset.

Source: van der Zee, T., Anaya, J., & Brown, N. J. (2017). Statistical heartburn: An attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab (No. e2748v1). PeerJ Preprints.


Musicus, A., Tal, A., & Wansink, B. (2015). Eyes in the Aisles: Why Is Cap’n Crunch Looking Down at My Child?. Environment and Behavior, 47(7), 715-733.

Citations: 7

The average angle of eyes appearing on children’s cereal box is calculating by making various assumptions about the depth of the eyes of these cartoon characters. After incorrectly assuming that elliptical shapes are spherical shapes, they incorrectly calculate the angles. More importantly, the angle of eyes on any static picture is entirely independent of your perspective, while the authors incorrectly claim the angle is specifically targeted at children’s height.

Summary: The entire premise of this paper is flawed/invalid, but even if this would not be the case there are serious issues with the calculations.

Sourcehttp://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/cartoon_eyes.htm


Kniffin, K. M., Sigirci, O., & Wansink, B. (2016). Eating heavily: men eat more in the company of women. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(1), 38-46.

Citations: 4

A wide range of inconsistencies, with over 60 errors such as impossible and inconsistent means and statistics, changing sample sizes and degrees of freedom, and other inconsistencies. The reported data comes from the same study as three other papers, but this was not mentioned. See this picture from the pre-print for a more thorough list of inconsistencies:

Update (July 14, 2017): A correction has been issued for this paper by “tha (sic) authors”.

Summary: Very serious concerns about the veracity of this paper and the underlying dataset.

Source: van der Zee, T., Anaya, J., & Brown, N. J. (2017). Statistical heartburn: An attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab (No. e2748v1). PeerJ Preprints.


Sığırcı, Ö, Rockmore, M., & Wansink, B. (2016). How traumatic violence permanently changes shopping behavior.  Frontiers in Psychology, 7,

Citations: 0

This study is about World War II veterans. Given the mean age stated in the article, the distribution of age can only look very similar to this:

The article claims that the majority of the respondents were 18 to 18.5 years old at the end of WW2 whilst also have experienced repeated heavy combat. Almost no soldiers could have had any other age than 18.

In addition, the article claims over 20% of the war veterans were women, while women only officially obtained the right to serve in combat very recently.

Finally, there is some self-plagiarism of the method section of: Wansink, B., Payne, C. R., & Van Ittersum, K. (2008). Profiling the heroic leader: Empirical lessons from combat-decorated veterans of World War II. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 547-555.

Summary: Combination of several minor and serious issues.

Sourcehttp://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2017/03/cornell-salutes-americas-teenage-female.html


You made it to the end, congratulations.


Changelog:

2017-03-21: Added the following article:

  • Just, D. R., & Wansink, B. (2015). Fast food, soft drink and candy intake is unrelated to body mass index for 95% of American adults. Obesity science & practice, 1(2), 126-130.

2017-03-27: Added the following articles:

  • Wansink, B., & Chan, N. (2001). Relation of soy consumption to nutritional knowledge. Journal of Medicinal Food4, 145–150.
  • Wansink, B., & Cheong, J. (2002). Taste profiles that correlate with soy consumption in
    developing countries. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition1, 276–278.
  • Wansink, B., & Westgren, R. (2003). Profiling taste-motivated segments. Appetite41, 323–327.

2017-04-06: Added the following articles:

  • Wansink, B., & Deshpande, R. (1994). “Out of sight, out of mind”: Pantry stockpiling and brand-usage frequency. Marketing letters5(1), 91-100.
  • Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2007). Portion size me: Downsizing our consumption norms. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107, 1103–1106.
  • Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2013). Portion size me: Plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 320–332.
  • Wansink, B. (2003).  Profiling nutritional gatekeepers: Three methods for differentiating influential cooks.
  • Wansink, B., Cardello, A., & North, J. (2005). Fluid consumption and the potential role of canteen shape in minimizing dehydration.

Also updated the following article with another case of self-plagiarism without attribution:

  • Wansink, B. (2010).  From mindless eating to mindlessly eating better. Physiology & Behavior100,  454–463.

And made various smaller updates to some articles, as well as the introduction text.

2017-07-14: Added more articles, and added some entries to reflect issues corrections.

8 thoughts on “The Wansink Dossier: An Overview

  1. Consider sending your report to the integrity officer of the university of Wansink, if you not already did so.

  2. This is extensive work. This must have taken you a very long time. It is indeed a pretty damning report. Academic malpractice needs to be detected so your readers are thankful for your post.

    Can I ask you for your motivations to publish this detailed, targeted analysis here? Is this part of your research (i.e. are you funded to do this kind of research, which would explain in part the generous amount of time and focus allocated to it?) One suspects the problem is both systemic and endemic and not unique to a particular individual. Apart from those briefly stated, what was the selection criteria that led you to dig deeply into Wansink’s publications? Was Wansink and his co-authors contacted about this study for comment? Were Wansink et al’s editors contacted? COPE?

    One cannot help wondering what would be the most ethical, collegial way to denounce academic malpractice post hoc over time.

    • It has indeed taken quite some time and effort, although this blog post is just a compilation of already existing research. I am not paid or rewarded in any way for these efforts, nor are any of the other persons who are actively investigating Wansink. So why do we do it? Personally, because I think it is important that the scientific literature is accurate. It is often said that science is self-correcting; but this is only true because scientists put in effort to accomplish this. This is my why of contributing, in addition to my regular research.

      Wansink got our attention because he more or less self admitted to using a wide range of questionable research practices on his own blog, found here. After inspecting some of the papers he himself describes there, I spotted a range of irregularities. On Twitter I found out about others who were doing the same thing, so we joined forces and wrote a pre-print describing 150 errors in just 4 papers. I do not particularly care about Wansink’s research, but insofar as my aim is to help making science more accurate his work is merely ‘low hanging fruit’.

      Long before we started public communications we attempted to communicate in private with Wansink. We asked him to share his data (which is was supposed to do given the publication guidelines) but he refused to. He did offer me to become co-author on a paper with him (whether that was genuine or some kind of bribe I do not know). After he stopped responding we contacted Cornell Universities’s Office of Research Integrity and Assurance (ORIA) and the Institutional Research Board (IRB). They replied only very briefly, stating that they supported “open inquiry and vigorous scientific debate” but that everything was up to the researchers to decide whether they want to share data or not. They never commented on the massive amounts of errors we found in just 4 papers. You can read more about that in one of my earlier posts here.

      Communications with journal editors seems to have become much more fruitful as of late, with many of them responding that they will further investigate the papers.

      Like you, I also wonder what the most ethical way is to denounce academic malpractice. I hope that my efforts are considered to be a good way to do so. If not, please do provide feedback on how I can do it in a better way.

    • Thanks Lielais. They indeed replied to the issues raised in the 4 pizza papers. Like you said, they have not responded to still increasing list of papers which contain similar and other kind of issues. To be honest I am somewhat baffled by their response; while it does make sense from a PR perspective they do not seem to take this all very seriously yet, as they downplay the critiques by referring to them as “raised questions” or focus only on self-plagiarism (which often is considered to be less severe than statistical errors and, say, impossible data/claims).

  3. Whomever has been funding his work should take notice of these findings. It is my understanding he received a large non-competitive award from USDA — I think it was over $5 million. I also fault academia in general for pressuring faculty to publish, publish, publish. I believe is was plausible explanation for why he did this. Quantity matters more than quality.

  4. De volkskrant heeft het over Diederik Stapel Daar heeft men niets van geleerd, ook niet in Nederland.
    Want Als je klachten hebt over een onderzoek moet je nog steeds bij de onderzoekende universiteit of instituut zijn.
    Het onderzoek naar zindelijkheid is jammer genoeg van het internet verdwenen. Maar was zo slecht dat het tegenwoordig heel normaal is dat kinderen pas met 4 jaar zindelijk zijn. Terwijl kinderen vroeger met 1,5 jaar zindelijk waren. En men in Belgie hele andere resultaten heeft.
    Maar TNO stuurt het gewoon alleen door naar de falende wetenschappers.

Leave a Comment