Recent highly publicized cases of scientific misconduct have raised concerns about its
consequences for academic careers. Previous and anecdotal evidence suggests that these reach
far beyond the fraudulent scientist and her career, affecting coauthors and institutions. Here we
show that the negative effects of scientific misconduct spill over to uninvolved prior
collaborators: compared to a control group, prior collaborators of misconducting scientists, who
have no link to the misconduct case, are cited 8 to 9% less afterwards. We suggest that the
mechanism underlying this phenomenon is stigmatization by mere association. The result
suggests that scientific misconduct generates large indirect costs in the form of mistrust against a
wider range of research findings than was previously assumed. The broad fallout of misconduct
implies that potential whistleblowers might be disinclined to make their concerns public in order
to protect their own reputation and career.
Das Dokument wird vom Publikationsserver der Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim bereitgestellt.
Search Authors in