Zombie papers in social psychology: A look into Smeesters’ seven retracted articles and their citations (Artículos zombi en la psicología social: un análisis de los siete artículos retractados de Smeesters y sus citas)

Barra lateral del artículo

PDF (English)
Publicado: ene. 28, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56754/2810-6598.2026.0056
Palabras clave:
Artículos zombi, retractación, citación posterior a la retractación, mala conducta en la investigación en psicología, publicación académica, políticas editoriales

Contenido principal del artículo

Salim Moussa
Institut Supérieur d’Administration des Entreprises, Université de Gafsa, Tunisia
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2589-0719

Resumen

Absstract: This study investigates the long-term impact of retracted articles, focusing on the case of Dutch social psychologist Dirk Smeesters. Despite their retraction, all seven of Smeesters’ articles are still cited, earning them the title of “zombie papers”. According to an analysis of citation data from Clarivate’s Web of Science Core Collection (conducted in January 2025), 58.28% of citations occurred post-retraction, with some articles receiving more citations post-retraction than pre-retraction. The author identifies 25 journals that cite these articles, including five instances of positive post-retraction citations in the large-scale psychology journal Current Psychology and the Open Access journal Frontiers in Psychology (with two and three citations, respectively). These findings highlight systemic issues in scholarly publishing, emphasizing the importance of improved retraction tracking, citation practices, and ethical/editorial oversight.


Keywords: Zombie articles; retraction; post-retraction citation; research misconduct in psychology; academic publishing; editorial policies


Resumen: Este estudio examina el impacto a largo plazo de los artículos retractados, centrándose en el caso del psicólogo social neerlandés Dirk Smeesters. A pesar de su retractación, los siete artículos de Smeesters continúan siendo citados, lo que les ha valido la denominación de “artículos zombi”. Según un análisis de los datos de citación de la Web of Science Core Collection de Clarivate (realizado en enero de 2025), el 58,28 % de las citas se produjeron después de la retractación, y algunos artículos recibieron más citas en el período posterior a la retractación que antes de ella. El autor identifica 25 revistas que citan estos artículos, incluidas cinco citas positivas posteriores a la retractación en la revista de psicología de gran escala Current Psychology y en la revista de acceso abierto Frontiers in Psychology (con dos y tres citas, respectivamente). Estos resultados ponen de relieve problemas sistémicos en la publicación académica y subrayan la importancia de mejorar el seguimiento de las retractaciones, las prácticas de citación y la supervisión ética y editorial.


Palabras clave: Artículos zombi; retractación; citación posterior a la retractación; mala conducta en la investigación en psicología; publicación académica; políticas editoriales


Resumo: Este estudo investiga o impacto de longo prazo de artigos retratados, com foco no caso do psicólogo social holandês Dirk Smeesters. Apesar de terem sido retratados, todos os sete artigos de Smeesters continuam a ser citados, o que lhes rendeu a designação de “artigos zumbi”. De acordo com uma análise dos dados de citação da Web of Science Core Collection da Clarivate (realizado em janeiro de 2025), 58,28 % das citações ocorreram após a retratação, sendo que alguns artigos receberam mais citações no período pós-retratação do que antes dela. O autor identifica 25 periódicos que citam esses artigos, incluindo cinco citações positivas pós-retratação na revista de psicologia de grande escala Current Psychology e na revista de acesso aberto Frontiers in Psychology (com duas e três citações, respectivamente). Esses resultados destacam problemas sistêmicos na publicação acadêmica e enfatizam a importância de melhorar o monitoramento das retratações, as práticas de citação e a supervisão ética e editorial.


Palavras-chave: Artigos zumbi; retratação; citação pós-retratação; má conduta na pesquisa em psicologia; publicação acadêmica; políticas editoriais.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Detalles del artículo

Cómo citar
Moussa, S. (2026). Zombie papers in social psychology: A look into Smeesters’ seven retracted articles and their citations (Artículos zombi en la psicología social: un análisis de los siete artículos retractados de Smeesters y sus citas). Ibero-American Journal of Psychology and Public Policy, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.56754/2810-6598.2026.0056
Número
Vol. 3 Núm. 1 (2026)
Sección
Artículos
Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.

Todos los textos publicados por IJP&PP –sin excepción– se distribuyen amparados bajo la licencia Creative Commons 4.0 Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Esta licencia permite a terceros copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato. Los lectores pueden visualizar, descargar, almacenar, imprimir, buscar, indexar y crear enlaces a los textos, siempre y cuando el uso sea sin fines comerciales y la fuente original (IJP&PP) y los autores sean citados en todos los casos y situaciones. Si los usuarios desean adaptar el material publicado deben indicar claramente que el documento se publicó por primera vez en IJP&PP incluyendo el volumen, número, año, páginas y DOI.

Aunque los autores siguen siendo los propietarios de los derechos de autor, estos otorgan a la Revista los derechos irrevocables y no exclusivos de publicar, reproducir, distribuir y mostrar públicamente, y transmitir su artículo o partes del mismo de cualquier manera.

Citas

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (Amended effective January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2017). Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics, 113(1), 547-565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0

Behera, P. K., Jain, S. J., & Kumar, A. (2024). Examining retraction counts to evaluate journal quality in psychology. Current Psychology, 43(26), 22436–22443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06044-y

Biju, V. V., Jose, S., Franklin, J., & Jasimudeen, S. (2025). An analysis of availability and implications of unlabeled retracted articles on Sci-Hub. Accountability in Research, 32(5), 655-674. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2446558

Bloudoff-Indelicato, M. (2015). Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature, 526(7575), 613-613. https://doi.org/10.1038/526613f

Bolland, M. J., Grey, A., & Avenell, A. (2022). Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem. Accountability in Research, 29(1), 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1886933

Brainard, J. (2022). Silence greets requests to flag retracted studies. Science, 377(6601), 11-12. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.add6988

Candal-Pedreira, C., Ruano-Ravina, A., Fernández, E., Ramos, J., Campos-Varela, I., & Pérez-Ríos, M. (2020). Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study. BMJ Global Health, 5(11), e003719. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003719

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2025). Retraction guidelines (Version 3). https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines

Craig, R., Cox, A., Tourish, D., & Thorpe, A. (2020). Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done? Research Policy, 49(4), 103930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103930

Crone, G., & Green, C. D. (2025). Tools of the data detective: A review of statistical methods to detect data and result anomalies in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 35(3), 359-380. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543241311861

Ferguson, C., & Brown, N. J. (2025). Editorial: Retractions and their discontents. Current Psychology, 44(17), 14511-14513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06887-5

Frederick, D. E. (2023). Zombie papers, the Data Deluge column. Library Hi Tech News, 40(9), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-10-2023-0194

Heibi, I., & Peroni, S. (2022). A quantitative and qualitative open citation analysis of retracted articles in the humanities. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(4), 953-975. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00222

Horbach, S. P., Fishberg, R., Ulpts, S., & Degn, L. (2024). Thou Shalt Not!–How the institutional afterlife of research misconduct scandals shapes research integrity training. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 11(1), 2414500. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2024.2414500

Joëts, M. & Mignon, V. (2026). Slaying the Undead: How Long Does It Take to Kill Zombie Papers? Research Policy, 55(2), 105401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105401

Million, A. J., & Budd, J. (2024). Disinformation in Science: Ethical Considerations for Citing Retracted Works. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 257-265. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1025

Minetto, S., Pisaturo, D., Cermisoni, G. C., Vanni, V. S., Pagliardini, L., Papaleo, E., Berghella, V., Mol, B. W., & Alteri, A. (2024). Are you aware of your citations? A cross-sectional survey on improper citations of retracted articles in assisted reproduction. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 49(5), 104366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104366

Moran, C., Richard, A., Wilson, K., Twomey, R., & Coroiu, A. (2023). I know it’s bad, but I have been pressured into it: Questionable research practices among psychology students in Canada. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 64(1), 12-24. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/cap0000326

Moussa, S. (2022). The propagation of error: retracted articles in marketing and their citations. Italian Journal of Marketing, 2022(1), 11-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-021-00044-7

Moussa, S. (2025a). Reimagining Consumer Psychology through Open Science Principles. Meta-Psychology, 9, https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2024.4164

Moussa, S. (2025b). Lost in retraction: The curious case of a misidentified investigation and a missing retraction notice. LIBREAS. Library Ideas, 47, https://doi.org/10.18452/34822

Moussa, S., & Charlton, A. (2024). Retraction (mal) practices of elite marketing and social psychology journals in the Dirk Smeesters’ research misconduct case. Accountability in Research, 31(7), 751-766. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2164489

National Institutes of Health. (2024, August 19). What Is Research Misconduct? NIH Grants & Funding. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/research-misconduct/what-is-research-misconduct

Renshaw, T. L., van Dijk, W., Farmer, R. L., Brown, J. M., & Jimerson, S. R. (2025). Advancing Open Science in School Psychology: Opportunities, Innovations, and Future Directions to Support Transparency, Access, and Accountability. School Psychology Review, 54(4), 433-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2025.2522589

Sotudeh, H., Barahmand, N., Yousefi, Z., & Yaghtin, M. (2022). How do academia and society react to erroneous or deceitful claims? The case of retracted articles’ recognition. Journal of Information Science, 48(2), 182-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520945853

Sethuraman, R. M. (2023). Citation of retracted articles: simple solutions to this perennial problem. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 48(11), 580-580. https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2023-104540

Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670-688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460687

Task Force on Publication and Research Practices, Society for Personality and Social Psychology (2014). Notice: PSPB Articles by Authors With Retracted Articles at PSPB or Other Journals: Stapel, Smeesters, and Sanna. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(1), 132-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213508152

Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2020). Reasons for citing retracted literature are not straightforward, and solutions are complex. Journal of Applied Physiology, 129(1), 3-3. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00258.2020

Vazire, S., & Holcombe, A. O. (2022). Where are the self-correcting mechanisms in science? Review of General Psychology, 26(2), 212-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211033912

Watts, L. L., Lefkowitz, J., Gonzalez, M. F., & Nandi, S. (2023). How relevant is the APA ethics code to industrial-organizational psychology? Applicability, deficiencies, and recommendations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(2), 143-165. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/iop.2022.112

Woo, S., & Walsh, J. P. (2024). On the shoulders of fallen giants: What do references to retracted research tell us about citation behaviors? Quantitative Science Studies, 5(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00303

Xu, H., Ding, Y., Zhang, C., & Tan, B. C. (2023). Too official to be effective: An empirical examination of unofficial information channel and continued use of retracted articles. Research Policy, 52(7), 104815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104815

Yang, S., Qi, F., Diao, H., & Ajiferuke, I. (2024). Do retraction practices work effectively? Evidence from citations of psychological retracted articles. Journal of Information Science, 50(2), 531-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221097623

Yeo-Teh, N. S. L., & Tang, B. L. (2025). On “intent” in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 32(7), 1180-1198. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2374577