Guilt by association exists in science, according to European researchers who studied scientific misconduct and found that the negative effects of misconduct have significant fallout, impacting not just co-authors and institutions but also previous collaborators.

"The results of the study are worrisome," explained Katrin Hussinger from the University of Luxembourg. "Our research shows that guilt by association stretches back to projects prior to the fraud case and thereby to unsuspecting and uninvolved co-workers."

The study, conducted with Maikel Pellens (ZEW, Mannheim and KU Leuven), was based on the U.S. Office of Research Integrity's 1993 to 2008 misconduct filings. A group of 856 prior research collaborators of the fraudulent scientists was identified using publication records dating back five years before the case of misconduct. Only cases where a retraction or correction of the research processed for scientific misconduct was published were taken into account.

Subscribe to eNewsletters
Get the latest industry news and technology updates
related to your research interests.

Compared to a control group, the results showed an average drop in citations of 8 to 9 percent for previous colleagues. Because, researchers with a high citation count are usually also more successful in attracting funding and receive more lucrative job offers, the reduced citation count could have significant implications for their careers.

While stigmatization by association has been observed in different settings and contexts, the results from the field of academia are problematic in their own ways, added Hussinger: "Trust is a crucial aspect of communicating science and conveying research results to the public. The ripple effects of one misconduct case can put at risk the reputation of a much larger group of scientists and even institutions."

An unwanted implication of guilt by association, according to the study, could be the underreporting of actual fraud causes by scientists concerned with protecting their own reputations and careers. "Knowing that they might be penalized for mere association might make researchers think twice before speaking out," Hussinger noted.