Search arXiv⌕ 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 discoveries

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

LLMs Interpret, Embeddings Organize, Graphs Emerge: Agent-Driven Compilation of Scientific Knowledge

Sustained scientific work requires a knowledge substrate that carries interpretation across tasks and preserves paths to source evidence. We call this process \emph{scientific knowledge compilation} and implement it in ASKS, the \emph{Agent-Driven Scientific Knowledge System}. For each source, an LLM produces a readable Wiki view and machine-facing semantics. Deterministic checks convert the latter into a document-local GraphDelta, and embedding geometry together with explicit graph rules integrates the proposed changes into persistent state. Each ingest is an inspectable state transition over accumulated knowledge, with compiled Wiki and graph views linked to the preserved source record. We examine this process by chronologically compiling 56 published papers from one research program. Branch survival, cross-paper support, lineage, coverage, and churn yield a source-traceable author research portrait centered on tensor-network methods, with branches into quantum many-body research, tensor-network machine learning, and quantum-AI-oriented directions. In this run, higher-level Hub organization remains stable and low-churn. Canonical-node growth is predominantly additive. Graph-level measurements and navigation paths retain links to the source records from which they were compiled.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Advisor career stage and PhD advisee outcomes

PhD advisors are central to doctoral training, but their influence may vary across career stages. Early-, mid-, and late-career advisors may differ in research activity, mentoring capacity, professional networks and access to resources. However, little is known about how PhD advisor career stage is associated with PhD student development outcomes. Drawing on multiple large-scale datasets comprising 250,838 advisor-advisee pairs from 312 U.S. PhD-granting institutions, we examine the relationship between advisor career stage and PhD advisee outcomes in knowledge production, collaboration networks and academic career placement. We find that early-career PhD advisors are associated with advisees' higher research productivity and citation performance, more opportunities to engage in direct and intensive research collaboration, and greater likelihood of securing a faculty position. Mid- and late-career faculty, by contrast, appear to have advantages in providing network capital which students can inherit after graduation, training PhD advisees to produce disruptive research, and supporting them in securing faculty positions at top institutions. This study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the reproduction of scientific talent by revealing the role of advisor career stage in shaping this process. These findings have implications for doctoral applicants' decision-making and for institutional policymaking on PhD training, faculty support and faculty evaluation.

cs.CY↗