# The retraction gender gap: Are mixed teams more vulnerable?

Abdelghani Maddi, Emmanuel Monneau, Catherine Guaspare-Cartron,
Floriana Gargiulo, Michel Dubois

► To cite this version:

Abdelghani Maddi, Emmanuel Monneau, Catherine Guaspare-Cartron, Floriana Gargiulo, Michel Dubois. The retraction gender gap: Are mixed teams more vulnerable?. Quantitative Science Studies, 2025, pp.1-24. 10.1162/qss_a_00353. hal-04997350

HAL Id: hal-04997350

https://hal.science/hal-04997350v1

Submitted on 19 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# The Retraction Gender Gap: Are Mixed Teams More Vulnerable?

Abdelghani Maddi¹, Emmanuel Monneau², Catherine Guaspare-Cartron ³, Floriana Gargiulo⁴,
Michel Dubois⁵

¹abdelghani.maddi@cnrs.fr

ORCID: 0000-0001-9268-8022

Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Groupe d'Étude des Méthodes de l'Analyse Sociologique de la Sorbonne, GEMASS, F-75017 Paris, France.

² manu_monneau@hotmail.com

Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Groupe d'Étude des Méthodes de l'Analyse Sociologique de la Sorbonne, GEMASS, F-75017 Paris, France.

³catherine.guaspare@cnrs.fr

Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Groupe d'Étude des Méthodes de l'Analyse Sociologique de la Sorbonne, GEMASS, F-75017 Paris, France.

⁴floriana.gargiulo@cnrs.fr

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9813-1815

Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Groupe d'Étude des Méthodes de l'Analyse Sociologique de la Sorbonne, GEMASS, F-75017 Paris, France.

⁵michel.dubois@cnrs.fr

ORCID: 0000-0001-6872-9525

Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Groupe d'Étude des Méthodes de l'Analyse Sociologique de la Sorbonne, GEMASS, F-75017 Paris, France.

## Abstract

This study investigates the impact of gender diversity on the retraction of scientific publications. Analyzing a random sample of one million publications, covering 2,645,304 authors, alongside retraction data from RetractionWatch (39,709 publications), we identify key factors influencing publication retractions. Findings indicate that mixed-gender teams are more likely to face retractions than all-male or all-female teams, while individual authors are less prone to retractions. Larger research teams have a lower risk of retraction, whereas medium-sized teams (3-10 authors) experience increased risk. A close look at the reasons associated with retractions reveals some notable differences: male-led publications are often retracted for serious ethical violations, such as data falsification and plagiarism, while female-led publications primarily face procedural errors and updates in rapidly evolving fields. Promoting women to positions of responsibility in mix-collaborations may not only advances gender equity but also the accuracy of the scientific record.

## Keywords

Gender diversity; Men-women collaboration; Research integrity; Retraction; Post publication peer review.

## JEL classification

J16; I23; I24; Z13.

## Acknowledgments

Data available from The Center for Scientific Integrity, the parent nonprofit organization of RetractionWatch, subject to a standard data use agreement. This paper is a significantly revised version of the preprint by (Maddi et al., 2023), incorporating extensive constructive feedback from Quantitative Science Studies – QSS reviewers.

## Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

## Authors contributions

**Abdelghani Maddi**: conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; validation; visualization; writing – original draft preparation; writing – review and editing.

**Emmanuel Monneau**: conceptualization; data curation; investigation; methodology; formal analysis; writing – original draft preparation; writing – review and editing.

**Catherine Guaspare-Cartron**: conceptualization; investigation; methodology; formal analysis; writing – original draft preparation; writing – review and editing.

**Floriana Gargiulo**: conceptualization; data curation; visualization; investigation; methodology; writing – review and editing.

**Michel Dubois**: project administration; supervision; methodology; conceptualization; formal analysis; writing – original draft preparation; writing – review and editing.

## Funding information

This work was supported by a grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR). Grant number: ANR-20-CE26-0008. Website: https://anr.fr/Projet-ANR-20-CE26-0008.

## Data availability

We used data from OpenAlex and Retraction Watch, both freely accessible via their respective websites (OpenAlex: https://openalex.org via API and RetractionWatch: https://retractionwatch.com).
# 1. Introduction

Gender diversity is increasingly acknowledged as an important factor influencing not only the inclusiveness and fairness of research, but also the innovation and creativity that drive scientific progress (Krammer & Dahlin, 2024; Maddi & Gingras, 2021; Nielsen et al., 2018). This issue of gender diversity arises at several interrelated levels: at the level of scientific careers - although women make up a significant proportion of the scientific community, they remain significantly under-represented in higher academic ranks and leadership positions; at the level of scientific disciplines and epistemic cultures: mathematics, physics, engineering sciences are characterised by a marked under-representation of women; and, of course, at the level of scientific collaboration and authorship: as (Sugimoto & Larivière, 2023) recently pointed out, “overall, women's authorships are more likely to be in collaboration than men's and (...) women are less like to be sole author in domains where single authorship is particularly distinctive (...)” (p.48).

The issue of gender diversity in scientific research is a global challenge and despite the major efforts made over many years to understand the mechanisms associated with the production of these differences (see for example (Zuckerman et al., 1991)), considerable work remains to achieve true gender equity in scientific leadership and output. Addressing these situations of inequity requires not only identifying their multiple origins, but also implementing policies that promote equitable collaborations and transparency in academic labor, encouraging scientific societies and institutions to regularly assess and improve the diversity of their membership and leadership.

While the benefits of gender diversity for innovation and research productivity are well-documented, its potential impact on the reliability of scientific publications is less explored. This highlights an important yet insufficiently investigated question: does gender diversity help mitigate the potential problems in scientific publications, ranging from simple errors to serious misconduct, which often lead to retractions? Retraction, a key indicator of how well science is (not) doing, occurs when it is shown that a publication contains serious errors or that its author has committed scientific misconduct or ethical violations. It is intended to correct the scientific record (Wray, Andersen, 2018). Understanding whether gender-diverse research teams are less prone to these problems could provide valuable insights into how to promote scientific reliability.

In this article, the general issue of the relationship between gender diversity and the reliability of science is broken down into two research questions: 1) Does gender diversity in research teams have an impact on article retraction? 2) Are there discernible disparities in the reasons
underlying the retraction, depending on the gender composition of scientific publications? For each of these questions, this article provides answers based on the processing and analysis of a random sample of one million publications from OpenAlex, covering 2,645,304 authors.

## 2. Collaboration in Science and Gender Differences

Throughout the twentieth century, the presence of women in science grew steadily. Although the number of women has increased in all scientific disciplines (Rossiter, 1997, 2012), numerous studies in the sociology of science have highlighted the persistence of gender disparities across many dimensions of the academic career (salaries, career achievement, prestigious status or awards...) (Larivière et al., 2013; Lincoln et al., 2012; Rossiter, 1993). Moreover, these disparities between men and women age peers widen between the beginning and the end of their careers (Sugimoto & Larivière, 2023; Zuckerman et al., 1991).

Since the 1980s, quantitative analyses have repeatedly shown that women's scientific productivity is generally lower than that of men (Cole & Zuckerman, 1984; Reskin, 1978; Tower et al., 2007). To quote some recent results, except a few highly feminized disciplines (arts and health) where the gap between men's and women's publications is small, men publish 20% more than women across all disciplines, with the gap reaching a third (mathematics, physics, social sciences) and more (50% in psychology) (Sugimoto & Larivière, 2023). This trend of studies has especially emphasized the link between gender gap in access to a range of gains in academia and gender disparities in scientific production and citation insofar as authorship plays a key role in access to scientific advantages (position, status, funding, prizes...).

Sugimoto and Larivière (2023), relying on scientometric analyses of millions of publications spanning all disciplines, make a significant contribution to the comprehension of the mechanisms that hinder the development of women's career, and that are largely rooted in the functioning of the authorship attribution. Paying attention to the distribution of authorship in publications, they highlight a systematic disadvantage of women, who are less likely to occupy positions of value in bylines. They show that women are less likely than men to write as a sole author, whereas signing alone is particularly rewarding. If single-authored articles have largely decreased with the rise of collective authorship in all disciplines since the Second World War, single authorship reflects a type of intellectual labor considered of high scientific value not to mention the high citation rate sole authored articles usually capture.

If they publish less as single author, they are more likely than men to write in collaboration. But in all fields, it is men who occupy the dominant and therefore rewarding positions in the
byline, i.e. first and last author. Women tend to occupy more often positions in the byline that mark a junior status or a low position in the career, or that indicate the performance of technical tasks of relatively low prestige (i.e. early and mid-positions). However, they are more likely to occupy a leadership role by signing as first author if the size of the team increases. Moreover, above a certain team size, they tend to lose this dominant position, a trend reflected in the analyses based on our data.

### 3. Correction of science and gender differences

Numerous studies have delved into the realm of retracted scientific articles, exploring the multifaceted aspects surrounding them (Fang & Casadevall, 2011; Wray & Andersen, 2018). These investigations have examined diverse angles, encompassing the reasons for retractions, ethical considerations, methodological flaws, and the potential consequences for scientific trust and credibility (Cokol et al., 2008; Pfeifer & Snodgrass, 1990; Steen, 2011b; Steen et al., 2016). Gender disparities in science extend beyond authorship and career advancement; they also manifest themselves in areas such as the correction and retraction of scientific work. Existing literature has shown that there are notable gender differences in acknowledging errors, recanting and correcting scientific findings. Studies have shown that female scientists are more likely to backtrack on their research or admit mistakes than their male counterparts (Wadman, 2005). This gender disparity in correctional practices can be attributed to a variety of factors including societal expectations, biases and cultural norms that put additional pressure on women to uphold high standards of accuracy and integrity (Kaatz et al., 2013). Additionally, systemic biases and gender inequalities within the scientific community can influence the reception and response to errors, leading to differential treatment based on gender.

Gender differences in scientific misconduct is a topic that has gained increasing attention in the recent scientific literature, with several studies shedding light on various aspects of this issue. (Fang et al., 2013) conducted a comprehensive analysis of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) database, examining 228 cases of scientific misconduct. Their findings revealed that a significant majority of these cases involved male researchers, particularly professors. However, it is important to point out that these findings do not imply that male researchers are inherently less ethical or have less integrity than their female counterparts. Therefore, one needs to investigate the historical and sociological factors contributing to these disparities, as underscored by (Kaatz et al., 2013).

Examining the presence of women in retracted publications, (Decullier & Maisonneuve, 2021) conducted one of the first studies on this topic. Their analysis of 113 retracted publications
revealed that 37.2% of them were authored by women, either as the first author or as sole authors. Notably, fraud and plagiarism accounted for 28.6% and 59.2% of retractions, respectively, for both men and women. In the field of biomedical sciences, (Pinho-Gomes et al., 2023) examined gender differences in the authorship of retracted articles, utilizing data from Retraction Watch. Among 35,635 retracted biomedical articles spanning from 1970 to 2022, women accounted for 27.4% of first authors and 23.5% of last authors. The underrepresentation of women was particularly pronounced in cases of fraud (approximately 19%) (see also Sebo et al., 2023). Notably, the highest representation of women as first authors was observed in cases related to editorial issues (35%) and errors (29.5%). Overall, most retractions (60.9%) involved male researchers as both first and last authors. The authors suggested that achieving gender equality could contribute to enhancing research integrity in the field of biomedical sciences.

In a study by (Ribeiro et al., 2023), the authors investigated the behavior of self-retraction due to honest errors, considering factors such as country, research domain, and gender. Analyzing 2,906 retracted publications categorized under "errors" between 2010 and 2021, the study revealed that women scientists accounted for 25% of self-retractions due to honest errors. However, further research is warranted to develop standardized indicators that measure the proportional representation of women in science, specifically in the context of retractions. Furthermore, (Satalkar & Shaw, 2019) conducted interviews with 33 Swiss researchers to explore the early influences on concepts of honesty, integrity, and fairness in research. The findings highlighted the significance of early education, moral values instilled by families, and participation in team sports as the primary influencers. Notably, two-thirds of the participants had not received any formal training on research integrity, which may increase the likelihood of honest errors due to a lack of knowledge.

While gender disparities in retractions are evident in the literature, it is important to interpret these findings in light of broader structural and historical factors. The overrepresentation of men in retractions aligns with their historically higher representation in academia and greater overall scientific productivity. However, as highlighted by multiple studies, this does not imply inherent differences in ethical behavior or research integrity between genders. Instead, it underscores the complex interplay of systemic factors, social expectations, and disciplinary norms.