English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Scientists involved in scientific misconduct may face social stigmatization,leading to isolation and limited opportunities for collaboration. Thereputation of every individual is reflected on the team, as the fraud attemptedby any member will be reflected on the team. Earlier studies pointed out theimpact of citation penalty on the prior work of coauthors, the effect ofretraction on a co-author's research career, and stigmatization through mereassociation. This paper explores the formation and dynamics of the networks ofauthors who faced retractions and their "innocent coauthors" who never facedretractions in their careers. Leveraging a dataset of 5972 retracted papersinvolving 24209 authors, we investigate whether scientific misconduct reducescollaborative ties of misconducting authors as opposed to those who never facedallegations of academic misconduct. We observe that the network structure ofauthors involved in retractions does not change significantly over the yearscompared to that of the "innocent coauthors". Our results suggest thatstigmatization rarely affects the collaboration network of stigmatized authors.Our findings have implications for institutions adopting stringent measures andfostering ethical practices research.

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