期刊
RESEARCH POLICY
卷 46, 期 9, 页码 1552-1569出版社
ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.07.003
关键词
Retractions; Fraud; Reputation; Scandal; Status; Scientists
类别
资金
- National Science Foundation through its SciSIP Program [SBE-1460344]
- Sloan Foundation through its Research Program on the Economics of Knowledge Contribution and Distribution
- AAMC Faculty Roster [HHSN263200900009C]
We investigate how the scientific community's perception of a scientist's prior work changes when one of his articles is retracted. Relative to non-retracted control authors, faculty members who experience a retraction see the citation rate to their earlier, non-retracted articles drop by 10% on average, consistent with the Bayesian intuition that the market inferred their work was mediocre all along. We then investigate whether the eminence of the retracted author and the cause of the retraction (fraud vs. mistake) shape the magnitude of the penalty. We find that eminent scientists are more harshly penalized than their less distinguished peers in the wake of a retraction, but only in cases involving fraud or misconduct. When the retraction event had its source in honest mistakes, we find no evidence of differential stigma between high- and low-status faculty members.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据