Home / Science / Duplicated study of apologizers leads to a retraction — and an apology – Retraction Watch

Duplicated study of apologizers leads to a retraction — and an apology – Retraction Watch

Duplicated study of apologizers leads to a retraction — and an apology – Retraction Watch

by way of Flickr

The Journal of Consumer Research has retracted a 2019 paper as a result of it overlapped considerably with a study beforehand revealed in Chinese by the identical authors.

But whether or not each authors agreed to the earlier submission is a topic of some confusion on the half of one of them.

The journal, revealed by Oxford Academic, added “RETRACTED” to the start of the paper’s title, “Sorry by Size: How the Number of Apologizers Affects Apology Effectiveness,” however didn’t embody a retraction discover, nor every other rationalization. The discover, second creator Sam Maglio, of the University of Toronto, informed Retraction Watch, will learn:

This article has been retracted by the editors of the Journal of Consumer Research as a result of it overlaps with an article revealed beforehand in one other journal. A comparability of the 2 articles by the editors revealed similarity on a quantity of dimensions, each conceptual and empirical. The first creator, as the first creator for each the beforehand revealed article and the retracted article, states that she misunderstood the duplication coverage. The second creator was unaware of the existence of the beforehand revealed article. The editors and each authors apologize for any issues that the publication of this text might have brought about.

Who knew what when? The two authors’ variations of what occurred are overlapping, however not similar.

Maglio informed us, talking of Yaxuan Ran, the paper’s first creator, of the Zhongnan University School of Economics and Law in Wuhan, China:

I collaborated along with her on the experiments and the write-up of the JCR manuscript. She ready different experiments and a related story in a write-up that she revealed in a Chinese-language journal with out my data.

Ran, nevertheless, mentioned:

My co-author Sam Maglio knew the 2 papers. Sam and I’ve mentioned the submission of the Chinese paper for 2 instances. The first time is that I needed to submit the Chinese paper to a Chinese convention. The second time is that I needed to submit the Chinese paper to a Chinese journal. He raised some doubts at the moment. But each of us thought it was a totally different paper from the English paper after the dialogue so I submitted it to the Nankai Business Review, a Chinese journal.

Maglio responded:

I contend that account, or maybe there’s a communication hole.

The solely time Yaxuan and I mentioned submission of the opposite paper was, as she notes, the occasion through which I suggested in opposition to submitting any associated work till our paper (the one which ended up at JCR) had been revealed. That was the final I heard or thought in regards to the Chinese paper till after our manuscript got here out on the JCR web site and the backlash started.

Maglio mentioned “the backlash” referred to the retraction. And Ran acknowledged that she might have misunderstood their change:

That is true. When discussing with Sam, I informed Sam that I’d submit the Chinese paper to Acta Psychologica Sinica. However, Acta Psychologica Sinica immediately rejected the Chinese paper as a result of the editors thought it didn’t fulfill their journal’s curiosity. I perhaps misunderstood Sam’s earlier reply “I’d be happy to be listed as the third author on the new paper” as a type of permission and authorization, so I submitted the Chinese paper to one other journal Nankai Business Review with out extra asking. And the Nankai Business Review didn’t ship submission emails to all authors. Based on this, it’s certainly true that Sam “was unaware of the existence of the previously published article.”

Ran admitted that:

I made a mistake as a result of I didn’t point out the Chinese paper as a associated work within the cowl letters. It is my carelessness and misunderstanding in regards to the “related work.” When I submitted my papers, I didn’t assume the 2 papers have been associated as a result of I believed they focused totally different viewers (particularly most of English readers haven’t any entry to Chinese papers). And I actually like the primary impact of my JCR paper and need to introduce it to a world and influential platform. As a junior scholar, I really feel very remorse in regards to the retraction and have realized from this.

Ran offered us with a side-by-side comparability of the 2 papers. She mentioned:

The beforehand revealed Chinese paper is on Nankai Business Review, a bi-monthly journal sponsored by Nankai University. The Chinese paper is a preliminary work of the subject of the quantity of apologizers within the Chinese context. First, the English paper on JCR is just not a translation of the Chinese paper. The textual content material and group of the JCR paper is just not the identical with the Chinese paper. In addition, the conceptual framework of the Chinese paper is just not the identical with that of the JCR paper: the previous incorporates the twin paths however latter has one path. Furthermore, the JCR paper is performed in a skilled, normative, and strict method from impact demonstration to scientific analysis course of through the use of completely totally different knowledge and research (together with an archival study and a actual behavioral study).

Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to help our work, comply with us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our every day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you may tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, e mail us at group@retractionwatch.com.

About Agent

Check Also

Former UCSD prof who resigned amid investigation into China ties has paper flagged for using the wrong test – Retraction Watch

Former UCSD prof who resigned amid investigation into China ties has paper flagged for using …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *