ArticleNature human behaviour2025
Characterizing the effect of retractions on publishing careers.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scientific retractions: causes, processes, and implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Article
- Transparency only from authors? Insights from 'mysterious' retractions in obstetrics and gynecology.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retracting academic papers is a fundamental tool of quality control, but it may have far-reaching consequences for retracted authors and their careers. Previous studies have highlighted the adverse effects of retractions on citation counts and the citations of co-authors; however, the broader impacts beyond these have not been fully explored. Here we address this gap by leveraging Retraction Watch, the most extensive dataset on retractions and link it to Microsoft Academic Graph and Altmetric. Retracted authors, particularly those with less experience, often leave scientific publishing in the aftermath of a retraction, especially if their retractions attract widespread attention. However, retracted authors who remain active in publishing maintain and establish more collaborations compared with their similar non-retracted counterparts. Nevertheless, retracted authors generally retain less senior and less productive co-authors, but gain more impactful co-authors post-retraction. Our findings suggest that retractions may impose a disproportionate impact on early career authors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.