IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v200y2025i3d10.1007_s10551-024-05866-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exposure of Academic Misconduct and Universities’ Innovation Output: Evidence from Retractions in China

Author

Listed:
  • Linna Li

    (Shanghai University of Finance and Economics)

  • Yiping Wu

    (Shanghai University of Finance and Economics)

  • Yu Wang

    (Inner Mongolia University)

Abstract

Frequent occurrences of academic misconduct have become a significant obstacle to scientific progress, necessitating collaborative governance from multiple stakeholders to achieve effective mitigation. However, as pivotal institution in national innovation and the governance of academic misconduct, universities often neglect the issue of academic misconduct in promoting innovation. To elucidate the potential damage that neglecting research integrity governance may inflict on university innovation, this study utilized retraction and innovation data from Chinese Double First-Class Initiative universities between 2007 and 2017 to systematically explore the impact, mechanism, and economic consequences of academic misconduct exposure on university innovation output. Our findings indicate that exposure to academic misconduct significantly reduces the innovation output levels of the involved universities, with research reputation being the primary mechanism driving this effect. The economic consequence analysis reveals that innovation stakeholders strategically adjust their behavior based on the research integrity status of universities. Such adjustments lead to a shift in research funding and innovation collaboration structures in a manner detrimental to long-term innovation, thereby causing economic losses to the universities’ innovation. Moreover, the negative impact of academic misconduct on university innovation output is more pronounced in STEM disciplines, comprehensive universities, and high-impact journal exposure events, and it intensifies with the prolongation of exposure lag time. Overall, this study enriches the theoretical framework of factors influencing university innovation output, clearly identifying the crucial role of research reputation in promoting university innovation. It provides theoretical basis and practical impetus for universities to proactively strengthen research integrity governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Linna Li & Yiping Wu & Yu Wang, 2025. "Exposure of Academic Misconduct and Universities’ Innovation Output: Evidence from Retractions in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 200(3), pages 649-668, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:200:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-024-05866-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-024-05866-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-024-05866-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-024-05866-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandro Iaria & Carlo Schwarz & Fabian Waldinger, 2018. "Frontier Knowledge and Scientific Production: Evidence from the Collapse of International Science," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(2), pages 927-991.
    2. Brockman, Paul & Khurana, Inder K. & Zhong, Rong (Irene), 2018. "Societal trust and open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 2048-2065.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Jeremy C. Stein, 2008. "Academic freedom, private‐sector focus, and the process of innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 617-635, September.
    4. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    5. Lingzi Feng & Junpeng Yuan & Liying Yang, 2020. "An observation framework for retracted publications in multiple dimensions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1445-1457, November.
    6. Xiongfeng Pan & Jing Zhang & Malin Song & Bowei Ai, 2018. "Innovation resources integration pattern in high-tech entrepreneurial enterprises," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 51-66, March.
    7. Tie, Ying & Wang, Zheng, 2022. "Publish or perish? A tale of academic publications in Chinese universities," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    8. Tania Babina & Alex Xi He & Sabrina T Howell & Elisabeth Ruth Perlman & Joseph Staudt, 2023. "Cutting the Innovation Engine: How Federal Funding Shocks Affect University Patenting, Entrepreneurship, and Publications," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 895-954.
    9. Qiu, Shumin & Liu, Xielin & Gao, Taishan, 2017. "Do emerging countries prefer local knowledge or distant knowledge? Spillover effect of university collaborations on local firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1299-1311.
    10. Kim Clark & Yuan Li, 2023. "Organizational Event Stigma: Typology, Processes, and Stickiness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(3), pages 511-530, September.
    11. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7942), pages 138-144, January.
    12. Pavitt, Keith, 1991. "What makes basic research economically useful?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 109-119, April.
    13. Azoulay, Pierre & Bonatti, Alessandro & Krieger, Joshua L., 2017. "The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1552-1569.
    14. Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Gerard Roland, 2017. "Culture, Institutions, and the Wealth of Nations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 402-416, July.
    15. Wang, Lan & Lang, Zimo & Duan, Jiayin & Zhang, Hanyu, 2023. "Heterogeneous venture capital and technological innovation network evolution: Corporate reputation as mediating variable," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    16. Mohan, Vijay, 2019. "On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    17. Ginger Zhe Jin & Benjamin Jones & Susan Feng Lu & Brian Uzzi, 2019. "The Reverse Matthew Effect: Consequences of Retraction in Scientific Teams," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(3), pages 492-506, July.
    18. Jie Bai & Ludovica Gazze & Yukun Wang, 2022. "Collective Reputation in Trade: Evidence from the Chinese Dairy Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1121-1137, November.
    19. Nicola Lacetera & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2011. "The Economics of Scientific Misconduct," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 568-603.
    20. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Jialan Wang, 2010. "Superstar Extinction," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(2), pages 549-589.
    21. Wan, Yinglin & Gao, Yuchen & Hu, Yimei, 2022. "Blockchain application and collaborative innovation in the manufacturing industry: Based on the perspective of social trust," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    22. Kang, Yankun & Liu, Ruiming, 2021. "Does the merger of universities promote their scientific research performance? Evidence from China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    23. Smriti Mallapaty, 2024. "China conducts first nationwide review of retractions and research misconduct," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(8000), pages 700-701, February.
    24. Bin-Nashwan, Saeed Awadh & Sadallah, Mouad & Bouteraa, Mohamed, 2023. "Use of ChatGPT in academia: Academic integrity hangs in the balance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    25. Jasjit Singh & Lee Fleming, 2010. "Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 41-56, January.
    26. Daron Acemoglu, 1996. "A Microfoundation for Social Increasing Returns in Human Capital Accumulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 111(3), pages 779-804.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    2. Sebastian Hager & Carlo Schwarz & Fabian Waldinger, 2024. "Measuring Science: Performance Metrics and the Allocation of Talent," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(12), pages 4052-4090, December.
    3. Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2022. "How research institutions can make the best of scandals – once they become unavoidable," Post-Print hal-03908837, HAL.
    4. Xu, Haifeng & Ding, Yi & Zhang, Cheng & Tan, Bernard C.Y., 2023. "Too official to be effective: An empirical examination of unofficial information channel and continued use of retracted articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    5. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    6. Rainer Widmann & Michael E. Rose & Marina Chugunova, 2023. "Allegations of Sexual Misconduct, Accused Scientists, and Their Research," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 419, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    7. Khezr, Peyman & Mohan, Vijay, 2022. "The vexing but persistent problem of authorship misconduct in research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    8. Horton, Joanne & Krishna Kumar, Dhanya & Wood, Anthony, 2020. "Detecting academic fraud using Benford law: The case of Professor James Hunton," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    9. Kiran Sharma & Satyam Mukherjee, 2024. "The ripple effect of retraction on an author’s collaboration network," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 1519-1531, October.
    10. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    11. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    12. March, Raymond J. & Geloso, Vincent, 2020. "Gordon Tullock meets Phineas Gage: The political economy of lobotomies in the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    13. Mohan, Vijay, 2019. "On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    14. Shahan Ali Memon & Kinga Makovi & Bedoor AlShebli, 2025. "Characterizing the effect of retractions on publishing careers," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(6), pages 1134-1146, June.
    15. Ufuk Akcigit & Murat Celik & Daron Acemoglu, 2014. "Young, Restless and Creative: Openness to Disruption and Creative Innovations," 2014 Meeting Papers 377, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    16. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    17. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    18. Kong, Dongmin & Zhang, Bohui & Zhang, Jian, 2022. "Higher education and corporate innovation," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    19. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Pham, Tho & Talavera, Oleksandr, 2021. "Conference presentations and academic publishing," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 228-254.
    20. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:200:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-024-05866-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.