Gender imbalances of retraction prevalence among highly cited authors and among all authors

ImportanceRetractions are rare but increasingly common in scientific publishing. Understanding whether gender disparities exist in retraction rates, especially among top-performing scientists, may inform broader efforts to promote equity and research integrity. ObjectiveTo assess gender disparities in the likelihood of having retracted publications among highly cited and all other authors, and to explore how these vary across scientific fields, countries, and publication age cohorts. DesignCross-sectional bibliometric analysis incorporating retraction data into Scopus-based databases of top-cited scientists (top 2%) and all authors with [&ge;]5 publications. Retraction data were obtained from Retraction Watch and linked with author-level citation metrics. SettingGlobal, science-wide analysis using data from authors in all disciplines indexed in Scopus. ParticipantsA total of 10,361,367 authors with [&ge;]5 publications were included; 217,097 were among the top 2% most-cited authors. Gender was confidently assigned using NamSor for 8,267,888 authors. Authors with uncertain gender were excluded from gender-specific analyses. Main Outcomes and MeasuresGender-specific retraction rates and the relative propensity (R) of women vs men to have at least one retraction, overall and stratified by citation status, field, country income level, publication age cohort and publication volumes. ResultsAmong highly cited authors, retraction rates were 3.3% in men and 2.9% in women; among all authors, rates were 0.7% for both genders. Differences varied by field: womens rates were at least one-third lower than mens (R < 0.67) in Biology, Biomedical Research, and Psychology (R{square}< {square}0.67), but higher (R{square}> {square}1.33) in Economics, Engineering, and Information and Communication Technologies. Among highly cited authors, younger cohorts showed increasingly higher rates among men (4.2% men vs. 3.0% women in those starting to publish in 2002-2011; 8.7% men vs. 4.9% women in those starting post-2011). Country-level differences among highly cited authors were pronounced in some countries, as in Pakistan (28.7% men vs. 14.3% women). Among all authors, country-level gender differences were small. Conclusions and RelevanceGender differences in retraction rates exist but are modest. Field, country, and publication volume are stronger correlates. Structural and contextual factors likely drive retraction patterns and warrant further investigation. KEY POINTSO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSAre there gender disparities in the likelihood of having retracted publications among highly cited scientists and the broader scientific population? FindingsIn this cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of over 10 million authors with at least 5 publications, including 217,097 top-cited scientists, retraction rates were slightly lower in women than in men. Gender differences were modest compared with disparities by country, field, and citation volume, but varied across disciplines and publication age cohorts. MeaningGender is a minor correlate of retraction, and structural or contextual factors likely drive retraction patterns in science.