Characterizing the effect of retractions on scientific careers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.06710v2
• Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 00:53:31 GMT
• Title: Characterizing the effect of retractions on scientific careers
• Authors: Shahan Ali Memon, Kinga Makovi, Bedoor AlShebli
• Abstract summary: Retracting academic papers is a fundamental tool of quality control when the validity of papers or the integrity of authors is questioned. Previous studies have highlighted the adverse effects of retractions on citation counts and coauthors' citations. Our investigation focuses on the likelihood of authors exiting scientific publishing following a retraction, and the evolution of collaboration networks.
• Score: 1.6758573326215693
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Retracting academic papers is a fundamental tool of quality control when the validity of papers or the integrity of authors is questioned post-publication. While retractions do not eliminate papers from the record, they have far-reaching consequences for retracted authors and their careers, serving as a visible and permanent signal of potential transgressions. Previous studies have highlighted the adverse effects of retractions on citation counts and coauthors' citations; however, the broader impacts beyond these have not been fully explored. We address this gap leveraging Retraction Watch, the most extensive data set on retractions and link it to Microsoft Academic Graph, a comprehensive data set of scientific publications and their citation networks, and Altmetric that monitors online attention to scientific output. Our investigation focuses on: 1) the likelihood of authors exiting scientific publishing following a retraction, and 2) the evolution of collaboration networks among authors who continue publishing after a retraction. Our empirical analysis reveals that retracted authors, particularly those with less experience, tend to leave scientific publishing in the aftermath of retraction, particularly if their retractions attract widespread attention. We also uncover that retracted authors who remain active in publishing maintain and establish more collaborations compared to their similar non-retracted counterparts. Nevertheless, retracted authors with less than a decade of publishing experience retain less senior, less productive and less impactful coauthors, and gain less senior coauthors post-retraction. Taken together, notwithstanding the indispensable role of retractions in upholding the integrity of the academic community, our findings shed light on the disproportionate impact that retractions impose on early-career authors.

Related papers

• Using Bibliometrics to Detect Unconventional Authorship Practices and Examine Their Impact on Global Research Metrics, 2019-2023 [0.0]
  Between 2019 and 2023, sixteen universities increased their research output by over fifteen times the global average. This study detected patterns suggesting a reliance on unconventional authorship practices, such as gift, honorary, and sold authorship, to inflate publication metrics. The study underscores the need for reforms by universities, policymakers, funding agencies, ranking agencies, accreditation bodies, scholarly publishers, and researchers to maintain academic integrity and ensure the reliability of global ranking systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T22:20:34Z)
• ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models [56.08917291606421]
  ResearchAgent is a large language model-powered research idea writing agent. It generates problems, methods, and experiment designs while iteratively refining them based on scientific literature. We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T13:36:29Z)
• Understanding Fine-grained Distortions in Reports of Scientific Findings [46.96512578511154]
  Distorted science communication harms individuals and society as it can lead to unhealthy behavior change and decrease trust in scientific institutions. Given the rapidly increasing volume of science communication in recent years, a fine-grained understanding of how findings from scientific publications are reported to the general public is crucial.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T19:00:01Z)
• On the Detection of Reviewer-Author Collusion Rings From Paper Bidding [71.43634536456844]
  Collusion rings pose a major threat to the peer-review systems of computer science conferences. One approach to solve this problem would be to detect the colluding reviewers from their manipulated bids. No research has yet established that detecting collusion rings is even possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T18:12:09Z)
• Fusion of the Power from Citations: Enhance your Influence by Integrating Information from References [3.607567777043649]
  This study aims to formulate the prediction problem to identify whether one paper can increase scholars' influence or not. By applying the framework in this work, scholars can identify whether their papers can improve their influence in the future.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T19:51:44Z)
• How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors' Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions? [87.00095008723181]
  Authors have roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers. Female authors exhibit a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors. At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-22T15:59:30Z)
• Yes-Yes-Yes: Donation-based Peer Reviewing Data Collection for ACL Rolling Review and Beyond [58.71736531356398]
  We present an in-depth discussion of peer reviewing data, outline the ethical and legal desiderata for peer reviewing data collection, and propose the first continuous, donation-based data collection workflow. We report on the ongoing implementation of this workflow at the ACL Rolling Review and deliver the first insights obtained with the newly collected data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T11:02:43Z)
• Dynamics of Cross-Platform Attention to Retracted Papers [25.179837269945015]
  Retracted papers circulate widely on social media, digital news and other websites before their official retraction. We quantify the amount and type of attention 3,851 retracted papers received over time in different online platforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-15T01:40:20Z)
• A Measure of Research Taste [91.3755431537592]
  We present a citation-based measure that rewards both productivity and taste. The presented measure, CAP, balances the impact of publications and their quantity. We analyze the characteristics of CAP for highly-cited researchers in biology, computer science, economics, and physics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-17T18:01:47Z)
• Early Indicators of Scientific Impact: Predicting Citations with Altmetrics [0.0]
  We use altmetrics to predict the short-term and long-term citations that a scholarly publication could receive. We build various classification and regression models and evaluate their performance, finding neural networks and ensemble models to perform best for these tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-25T16:25:07Z)
• ArXiving Before Submission Helps Everyone [38.09600429721343]
  We analyze the pros and cons of arXiving papers. We see no reasons why anyone but the authors should decide whether to arXiv or not.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-11T22:26:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.