Back

Are female scientists underrepresented in self-correcting science for honest error?

Ribeiro, M. D.; Mena-Chalco, J.; Rocha, K. d. A.; Pedrotti, M.; Menezes, P.; Vasconcelos, S. M.

2022-10-14 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2022.10.11.511375 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposure of ones own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data is scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, letters, and others, from the Retraction Watch Database (2010-2021). We screened the dataset collected for research articles retracted for honest error, excluding retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We then categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.5%
2
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 7%
11.9%
3
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.3%
4
FACETS
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
5
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.3%
6
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
135 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.0%
8
F1000Research
88 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.2%
9
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
10
FASEB BioAdvances
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
11
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
12
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.4%
13
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 27%
1.7%
15
Biology of Sex Differences
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
16
Sustainability
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
18
Conservation Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
19
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
20
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
21
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
22
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
23
Animals
23 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
24
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
25
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
Stem Cell Research
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
27
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
28
BioData Mining
22 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
29
FEBS Open Bio
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%