The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Azoulay, Pierre (Author), Bonatti, Alessandro (Author), Krieger, Joshua L. (Author)
Other Authors: Sloan School of Management (Contributor)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier BV, 2020-08-17T21:28:12Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Get fulltext
LEADER 01425 am a22001813u 4500
001 126638
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Azoulay, Pierre  |e author 
100 1 0 |a Sloan School of Management  |e contributor 
700 1 0 |a Bonatti, Alessandro  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Krieger, Joshua L.  |e author 
245 0 0 |a The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions 
260 |b Elsevier BV,   |c 2020-08-17T21:28:12Z. 
856 |z Get fulltext  |u https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/126638 
520 |a 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. 
546 |a en 
655 7 |a Article 
773 |t Research Policy