arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2504.15504

Are Widely Known Findings Easier to Retract?

Shahan Ali Memon·Jevin D. West·Cailin O'Connor
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Failures of retraction are common in science. Why do they occur? And what determines whether a retraction is successful? We use data from citation records and Altmetrics to test proposed answers to these questions. LaCroix et al. employ network models to argue the social spread of information helps explain failures of retraction. One prediction is that widely known results, surprisingly, should be easier to retract, since their retraction is more relevant. Our results support this conclusion. We find highly cited papers show more significant reductions in citation after retraction and garner more attention to their retractions as they occur.

Explore related subjects

cs.DLcs.SI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Shahan Ali Memon, Jevin D. West, Cailin O'Connor. 2026-08-27. Are Widely Known Findings Easier to Retract?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15504

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.DL subjectcs.SI subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Filling holes in science draws collective attention, but most higher-order holes remain unexplored

Much scientific discovery involves filling holes between ideas and arguments that unleash techno-scientific advance. Representing knowledge as high-dimensional concept embeddings, we use persistent homology to detect holes of increasing order, from gaps between disconnected ideas to higher-order cavities, and identify the research works that fill them. We find two empirical asymmetries. Researchers who fill anticipated holes are poised to draw collective attention by staging outsized novelty and foresight, indicating that bridging holes anticipates where science will converge, most strongly in empirical fields and least in formal and design fields. Yet as knowledge grows, higher-order holes explode while the fraction science fills collapses, leaving most higher-order combinations unexplored. These results call for a richer science of holes, and mark a frontier where contemporary AI might help fill the high-dimensional gaps human science opens.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Tracing high-profile attention to questionable research as a case for funder due diligence

When questionable research has entered the scientific record, it stands the same chance as other literature of shaping national and international policy, clinical guidance, and research and development activities. This study uses a known authorship-for-sale network identified in August 2022 to examine whether questionable research influences policy, patents, and clinical guidelines, and whether its authors continue to secure funding and publish after exposure. Across nearly 2,000 publications in our dataset, 57 were cited in policy documents, 12 in clinical guidelines, and 480 in patents. Nearly a quarter of these publications are linked to one or more grants: funding that could otherwise have supported rigorous, ethical science. Among the 278 authors we traced, publishing and funding continued well after the PNN's public exposure in 2022: over 90% continued publishing, and 23% were linked to a grant. As our findings show, the participants of paper mills and authorship-for-sale networks can still inform policy and clinical practice and support their authors' career progression even after the questionable practices behind them are exposed. We present a case for funders to consider authorship and network structure as part of a holistic due diligence process, alongside metrics such as citation counts and attention data.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Citing Less Critically: LLMs Reshape the Rhetoric and Reach of Scientific Citation

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

cs.DL↗