Peer reviewed papers are retracted when they are considered an invalid source of scientific knowledge and, hence, should be completely removed from the scientific record. According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),¹ papers should be retracted in the following circumstances: 1) clear evidence for misconduct or honest error, 2) duplicate publication without proper reference, 3) plagiarism, and 4) unethical research. Despite the COPE proposal, there is no consensus definition of retraction, and the terms retraction, correction, withdrawal, removal, expression of concern, erratum, and corrigendum are often used interchangeably. Although the reasons for retraction are not always clear, they are often provided in retraction notices. The most common reason for retraction seems to be research misconduct (i.e., fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism), which accounts for about 60% of retractions.² 

Although retractions are rare, their absolute number and relative proportion of published papers have been increasing over the past decades,^3,4 with current estimations suggesting that about 4 in 10,000 papers end up being retracted. However, the proportion of retractions varies by publisher, with high impact journals having the highest retraction rates.⁵ The cause for this recent rise in retractions is not clear but seems to be the effect of growing scientific integrity, rather than an actual increase in scientific misconduct.⁶ Evidence suggests that researchers and journal editors have also become more aware of and more proactive about scientific misconduct, without a true increase in cases of fraud. 

The gender balance of authors of retracted papers remains largely unknown as it has received relatively less attention than scientific papers in general. In these, women are underrepresented at all levels and roles in the publishing system, including as authors, peer reviewers, and editors.⁷

Using the dataset of scientific retractions curated by RetractionWatch, we investigated gender differences in authorship of retracted papers overall and by reason. We estimated authors’ gender based on their given names, which might have introduced a degree of misclassification, especially for non-Western names and nonbinary gender identities. This degree of uncertainty is represented by the width of the 95% confidence interval (CI). Reasons for retractions were grouped into the following categories: 1) misconduct (including misconduct or concerns about authorship), 2) fraud, 3) plagiarism, 4) errors (including errors in any section of the paper), 5) duplication of content (including duplication of data, results, or images), 6) concerns about data (including results being unreproducible or unreliable, or manipulation of images), 7) issues related to the journal editor or publisher (including rogue editor, publisher/editor errors, and fake peer review), and 8) issues related to ethics and law (including noncompliance with ethical standards; lack of approval by ethics, institutional research boards, or regulators; lack of patient consent; copyright breaches; and legal threats). Due to small numbers, all remaining reasons were categorised as “other”. 

We included 64,658 articles from the RetractionWatch database published between January 1971 and June 2025. Most retractions (60.9%) had men as first and last authors. Women accounted for 26.4% (95% CI, 25.8%–26.9%) of first authors and 23.7% (95% CI, 23.2%–24.2%) of last authors. There were significant differences in gender of authors in retracted articles by reason, and women’s representation appeared to be lower than their representation as authors of scientific articles (Figure). The lowest representation of women was found for ethics and legal issues (16.6% [95% CI, 14.2%–19.2%] for first authors and 19.4% [95% CI, 17.1%–21.8%] for last authors). For first authors, women’s representation was the highest for errors caused by editors and publishers (33.8% [95% CI, 31.4%–36.4%]). For last authors, the highest representation of women was for plagiarism (28.9% [95% CI, 27.4%–30.6%]). 

Women’s underrepresentation among first and last authors of retracted papers is slightly lower than women’s representation among first and last authors of papers in general. Although there is substantial variation between scientific fields, women have consistently been found to account for about 30%–40% of first authors and 25%–30% of last authors.^7-9 In addition, the observed gender differences in reasons for retraction deserve careful consideration. Women’s underrepresentation in retractions due to misconduct and fraud is in keeping with previous studies, suggesting that men are more likely than women to be involved in fraud and misconduct in research.^10,11 For instance, in a sample of 113 retractions from diverse scientific fields, fraud and plagiarism accounted for 28.6% of women-authored retractions and 59.2% men-authored retractions.¹¹ Likewise, we found that women rarely have to retract papers due to ethical issues. On the other hand, the most common reasons for retractions by women are not the responsibility of the women, for instance due to errors committed by editors or publishers. Overall, this suggests that women may be better at following ethical and scientific integrity principles than men when conducting and publishing their research.

Although the underlying reasons for these gender differences remain uncertain, it is possible to formulate hypotheses based on the evidence currently available. These reasons may involve both academic and sociocultural factors. For instance, they may be related to attitudes toward research integrity, which are themselves influenced by career goals and ambitions as well as academic roles and social norms.^12,13 Gender stereotypes and bias at a societal level may result in differences in moral standards and values, which then influence attitudes and behaviors related to research integrity. On the other hand, men may experience greater pressure to maintain a certain level of output at senior positions than women.¹⁴ The pressure to “publish or perish” may lead to “sloppy science” that fails to adhere to the standards of scientific integrity and ethics expected in academia. However, no studies have specifically addressed this issue, thus precluding drawing definitive conclusions. 

Although only a small fraction of biomedical research papers is estimated to be retracted,² they tend to be highly publicized and impactful. Their consequences can extend in time even after subsequent research proves their lack of validity. For instance, the discredited and retracted association between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and autism still leads many parents to decline to vaccinate their children, thus exposing them to avoidable risks associated with those infections. It is likely that this fraudulent research is to blame for the recent rise in measles infections across the globe.¹⁵ Besides the impact of retractions on the public trust in science and the potential to influence behavior, the marked gender differences in underlying reasons for retractions may have important implications for academia. Addressing longstanding gender bias and other barriers that hinder women’s progression in academia and research could enhance the integrity and moral standards of the scientific community overall and, hence, reduce misconduct and fraud.¹⁶ Achieving gender equality across the academic ladder, particularly in senior positions that have greater power and influence, would allow women to serve as role models to junior academics and hence exert a positive influence on research teams and institutions. This could have far-reaching benefits from increasing public trust in science,¹⁷ to improving the value of research for populations and reducing the long-term harms caused by fraudulent research.¹⁸ For the benefits of gender equality to be achieved, it is essential that the pressure to publish or perish at senior levels, which currently has more impact on men than women, does not affect women leaders as well.

In conclusion, women’s representation among authors of retracted papers seems slightly lower than their representation as authors of scientific papers overall. Women’s underrepresentation is particularly marked for retractions due to fraud and misconduct and ethical concerns. This suggests that gender equality in academia could enhance research integrity within the scientific community in general and, hence, reduce the adverse impact that retractions have on population health and trust in science. This will require that gender equality is combined with releasing the pressure to publish at any cost for both women and men and the recognition of other forms of research dissemination, particularly at senior levels.

References and Links

1. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
2. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109. 
3. Gaudino M, Robinson NB, Audisio K, et al. Trends and characteristics of retracted articles in the biomedical literature, 1971 to 2020. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:1118–1121. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.1807. 
4. Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. J Med Ethics. 2011;37:567–570. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040964. 
5. Brainard J, You J. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Science. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav8384. 
6. Fanelli D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563. 
7. Filardo G, da Graca B, Sass DM, Pollock BD, Smith EB, Martinez MA-M. Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994–2014). BMJ. 2016;352:i847. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i847. 
8. Hart KL, Perlis RH. Trends in proportion of women as authors of medical journal articles, 2008–2018. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:1285–1287. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0907. 
9. Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Farjam M, et al. Peer review and gender bias: a study on 145 scholarly journals. Sci Adv. 2021;7:eabd0299. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd0299. 
10. Fang FC, Bennett JW, Casadevall A. Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct. mBio. 2013;4:e00640-12. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00640-12. 
11. Decullier E, Maisonneuve H. Retraction according to gender: a descriptive study. Account Res. 2021;30:356–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1988576. 
12. Satalkar P, Shaw D. How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20:72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0410-x. 
13. Kaatz A, Vogelman PN, Carnes M. Are men more likely than women To commit scientific misconduct? Maybe, maybe not. mBio. 2013;4:e00156-13. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00156-13. 
14. Rawat S, Meena S. Publish or perish: where are we heading? J Res Med Sci. 2014;19:87–89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3999612/. 
15. Fombonne E. Editorial: an autism case series, vaccine hesitancy, and death by measles. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2024;65:1403–1406. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.14058. 
16. The researcher journey through a gender lens. [accessed November 6, 2025]. Elsevier, 2020. https://assets.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/vnJzH1Omk5IfkG2fj13se/51078736202d629a597beb10c030b1b4/The-Researcher-Journey-Through-a-Gender-Lens-report-2020.pdf. 
17. Davey M. Retracted studies may have damaged public trust in science, top researchers fear. [accessed November 6, 2025]. Guardian, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jun/06/retracted-studies-may-have-damaged-public-trust-in-science-top-researchers-fear.
18. Omer SB. The discredited doctor hailed by the anti-vaccine movement. Nature. 2020;586:668–670. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02989-9. 

Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9895-1493) is with The George Institute for Global Health Imperial College London, and Institute of Global Health, University College London, Carinna Hockham (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2126-5350) is with The George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, and Mark Woodward (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9800-5296) is with The George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London and The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales. 

Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of their employers, the Council of Science Editors, or the Editorial Board of Science Editor.