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

Background Scientific retractions remain rare but have become increasingly common. We have previously incorporated retraction data into Scopus-based databases of top-cited (top 2%) scientists to facilitate linkage of retractions with impact metrics at the individual scientist level. Here, we set out to explore whether gender disparities in the likelihood of having retractions exist, both among highly-cited authors and among all authors with ≥ 5 publications. Methods We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of a Scopus-based authors database. We used NamSor to assign gender, retaining only results with a confidence > 85%. We examined the demographics of scientists with and without retractions among highly cited authors (career-long impact: n = 217,097) and among all other authors (n = 10,361,367). We stratified by publication age, field, country income level, and publication volume, and calculated gender-specific retraction rates and the relative propensity (R) of women versus men to have at least one retraction. Results Gender could be classified for 8,267,888 scientists. Among highly cited authors, 3.3% of men and 2.9% of women had at least one retraction; among all authors, the rate was 0.7% for both genders. Differences varied by field: women’s rates were at least one-third lower than men’s (R < 0.67) in Biology, Biomedical Research, and Psychology (R < 0.67), but higher (R > 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). These differences were smaller among all authors. Conclusion Our analysis shows that gender 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.