The Ripple Effect of Retraction on an Author's Collaboration Network

TL;DR

This study examines how retractions due to misconduct influence the collaboration networks of authors, finding that such stigmatization rarely impacts their collaborative ties over time.

Contribution

It provides a large-scale analysis of author networks post-retraction, revealing minimal changes in collaboration patterns and challenging assumptions about stigmatization effects.

Findings

Network structure of retracted authors remains stable over time

Stigmatization rarely affects collaboration networks

Implications for institutional policies on misconduct

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 their "innocent coauthors" who never faced retractions in their careers. Leveraging a dataset of 5972 retracted papers involving 24209 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 research.