skip to content
Retractions Preview this item
ClosePreview this item
Checking...

Retractions

Author: Pierre Azoulay; Jeffrey L Furman; Joshua L Krieger; Fiona E Murray
Publisher: Cambridge, Mass : National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012.
Series: NBER working paper series, 18499
Edition/Format:   eBook : Document : EnglishView all editions and formats
Database:WorldCat
Summary:
To what extent does "false science" impact the rate and direction of scientific change? We examine the impact of more than 1,100 scientific retractions on the citation trajectories of articles that are close neighbors of retracted articles in intellectual space but were published prior to the retraction event. Our results indicate that following retraction and relative to carefully selected controls, related  Read more...
Rating:

(not yet rated) 0 with reviews - Be the first.

 

Find a copy online

Links to this item

Find a copy in the library

&AllPage.SpinnerRetrieving; Finding libraries that hold this item...

Details

Material Type: Document, Internet resource
Document Type: Internet Resource, Computer File
All Authors / Contributors: Pierre Azoulay; Jeffrey L Furman; Joshua L Krieger; Fiona E Murray
OCLC Number: 815509600
Description: Online-Ressource.
Series Title: NBER working paper series, 18499
Responsibility: Pierre Azoulay, Jeffrey L. Furman, Joshua L. Krieger, Fiona E. Murray.

Abstract:

To what extent does "false science" impact the rate and direction of scientific change? We examine the impact of more than 1,100 scientific retractions on the citation trajectories of articles that are close neighbors of retracted articles in intellectual space but were published prior to the retraction event. Our results indicate that following retraction and relative to carefully selected controls, related articles experience a lasting five to ten percent decline in the rate at which they are cited. We probe the mechanisms that might underlie these negative spillovers over intellectual space. One view holds that adjacent fields atrophy post-retraction because the shoulders they offer to follow-on researchers have been proven to be shaky or absent. An alternative view holds that scientists avoid the "infected" fields lest their own status suffers through mere association. Two pieces of evidence are consistent with the latter view. First, for-profit citers are much less responsive to the retraction event than are academic citers. Second, the penalty suffered by related articles is much more severe when the associated retracted article includes fraud or misconduct, relative to cases where the retraction occurred because of honest mistakes.

Reviews

User-contributed reviews
Retrieving GoodReads reviews...
Retrieving DOGObooks reviews...

Tags

Be the first.
Confirm this request

You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway.

Linked Data


<http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/815509600>
library:oclcnum"815509600"
library:placeOfPublication
library:placeOfPublication
owl:sameAs<info:oclcnum/815509600>
rdf:typeschema:Book
schema:bookFormatschema:EBook
schema:contributor
schema:contributor
schema:contributor
schema:creator
schema:datePublished"2012"
schema:description"To what extent does "false science" impact the rate and direction of scientific change? We examine the impact of more than 1,100 scientific retractions on the citation trajectories of articles that are close neighbors of retracted articles in intellectual space but were published prior to the retraction event. Our results indicate that following retraction and relative to carefully selected controls, related articles experience a lasting five to ten percent decline in the rate at which they are cited. We probe the mechanisms that might underlie these negative spillovers over intellectual space. One view holds that adjacent fields atrophy post-retraction because the shoulders they offer to follow-on researchers have been proven to be shaky or absent. An alternative view holds that scientists avoid the "infected" fields lest their own status suffers through mere association. Two pieces of evidence are consistent with the latter view. First, for-profit citers are much less responsive to the retraction event than are academic citers. Second, the penalty suffered by related articles is much more severe when the associated retracted article includes fraud or misconduct, relative to cases where the retraction occurred because of honest mistakes."
schema:exampleOfWork<http://worldcat.org/entity/work/id/1175941005>
schema:inLanguage"en"
schema:name"Retractions"
schema:publisher
schema:url

Content-negotiable representations

Close Window

Please sign in to WorldCat 

Don't have an account? You can easily create a free account.