SpringerLink
Log in

The ripple effect of retraction on an author’s collaboration network

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Computational Social Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scientists involved in scientific misconduct may face social stigmatization, leading to isolation and limited opportunities for collaboration. The reputation of every individual is reflected on the team, as the fraud attempted by any member will be reflected on the team. Earlier studies pointed out the impact of citation penalty on the prior work of coauthors, the effect of retraction on a co-author’s research career, and stigmatization through mere association. This paper explores the formation and dynamics of the networks of authors who faced retractions and its ripple effect on their “innocent coauthors” who never faced retractions in their careers. Leveraging a dataset of 5972 retracted papers involving 24,209 authors, we investigate whether scientific misconduct reduces collaborative ties of misconducting authors as opposed to those who never faced allegations of academic misconduct. We observe that the network structure of authors involved in retractions does not change significantly over the years compared to that of the “innocent coauthors”. Our results suggest that stigmatization rarely affects the collaboration network of stigmatized authors. Our findings have implications for institutions adopting stringent measures and fostering ethical practices in research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Our primary data have been sourced from Web of Science and Scopus. Derived data used in the study would be made available upon final acceptance of the manuscript.

References

  1. AlShebli, B., Makovi, K., & Rahwan, T. (2020). Retracted article: The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance. Nature Communications, 11(1), 5855. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19723-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Azoulay, P., Bonatti, A., & Krieger, J. L. (2017). The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions. Research Policy, 46(9), 1552–1569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baker, M. (2015). Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baker, M. (2016). 1500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bornmann, L., & Tekles, A. (2019). Productivity does not equal usefulness. Scientometrics, 118(2), 705–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2982-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brainard, J., You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. https://www.science.org/content/article/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty

  7. Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. The FASEB Journal, 28(9), 3847–3855. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.14-256735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fuchs, S., & Westervelt, S. D. (1996). Fraud and trust in science. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 39(2), 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1996.0043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garisto, D. (2023). ‘A very disturbing picture’: Another retraction imminent for controversial physicist. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02401-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldstein, S. B., & Johnson, V. A. (1997). Stigma by association: Perceptions of the dating partners of college students with physical disabilities. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19(4), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1904_6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Greitemeyer, T., & Sagioglou, C. (2015). Does exonerating an accused researcher restore the researcher’s credibility? PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0126316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hussinger, K., & Pellens, M. (2019). Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators. Research Policy, 48(2), 516–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jack, A. (2023) Harvard withdraws papers in dishonesty expert scandal. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/64f76797-d390-45fd-b00f-2cab6412bdcb

  15. **, G. Z., Jones, B., Lu, S. F., & Uzzi, B. (2019). The reverse matthew effect: Consequences of retraction in scientific teams. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(3), 492–506. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kiai, A. (2019). To protect credibility in science, banish “publish or perish.” Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1017–1018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0741-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Li, W., Zhang, S., Zheng, Z., Cranmer, S. J., & Clauset, A. (2022). Untangling the network effects of productivity and prominence among scientists. Nature Communications, 13(1), 4907. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32604-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McNutt, M. (2014). Reproducibility. Science, 343(6168), 229–229. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mongeon, P., & Larivière, V. (2016). Costly collaborations: The impact of scientific fraud on co-authors’ careers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 535–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nesterak, E. (2023) Harvard professor under scrutiny for alleged data fraud—by Evan. Nesterak Behavioral Scientist. https://behavioralscientist.org/harvard-professor-under-scrutiny-for-alleged-data-fraud/

  21. Poldrack, R. A. (2019). The costs of reproducibility. Neuron, 101(1), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.11.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Qiu, J. (2010). Publish or perish in China. Nature, 463(7278), 142. https://doi.org/10.1038/463142a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shuai, X., Rollins, J., Moulinier, I., Custis, T., Edmunds, M., & Schilder, F. (2017). A multidimensional investigation of the effects of publication retraction on scholarly impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2225–2236. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. eLife, 3, e02956. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sunahara, A. S., Perc, M., & Ribeiro, H. V. (2021). Association between productivity and journal impact across disciplines and career age. Physical Review Research, 3(3), 033158. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. UGC. (2019). Research and publication ethics. https://hrdc.ugc.ac.in/Web/Home/ViewCourseDetails/842/

  27. Warren, M. (2023). Honesty researcher facing fraud concerns sues Harvard and accusers for $25 million. https://www.science.org/content/article/honesty-researcher-facing-fraud-concerns-sues-harvard-and-accusers-25-million

Download references

Funding

The authors received no funding for the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering and Technology, BML Munjal University, Gurugram, India

    Kiran Sharma

  2. School of Management and Entrepreneurship, Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence, Greater Noida, India

    Satyam Mukherjee

Authors
  1. Kiran Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Satyam Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satyam Mukherjee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, K., Mukherjee, S. The ripple effect of retraction on an author’s collaboration network. J Comput Soc Sc (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-024-00278-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-024-00278-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation