{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027434842249657063, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0054869684499314125, 'mean_word_length': 5.576576576576577, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Research fraud and its combat: what can a journal do?

According to this report by Levelt et al., Stapel was generally regarded as an esteemed, successful scientist. He had been characterised in the past as a ‘golden boy’: charismatic, ambitious, brilliant and creative in designing research, but also authoritative and somewhat peremptory. However, in August 2011, three junior researchers from Stapel’s group reported to the department chair their suspicion that Stapel had substantially falsified data. Within weeks, the university rector established a committee to investigate thoroughly the scientific conduct of Stapel, in collaboration with similar committees at two other universities that had previously employed Stapel.