Scholarly publication to retraction: why some gender-based studies do not survive scrutiny?

Purpose This study aims to analyse retracted articles in gender studies (2016–2025) to identify trends, duration from publication to retraction and key subject areas. It also examines the journals, publishers and countries involved, alongside the reasons for retraction and their subsequent academic impact. Design/methodology/approach Bibliographic data was sourced from the Retraction Watch Database, currently owned by CrossRef. Article altmetrics were gathered from Altmetric.com through its API using Python. The collected datasets were then processed and comprehensively analysed using the analytical tools in MS Excel and Tableau for visualisation. Findings The study found a sharp spike in retractions in 2023 (28.31%), as most retractions occurred within two years of publication. Subjects like medicine-healthcare (41.57%) and education (28.92%) dominated retractions. Major publishers like Hindawi (16.87%) Elsevier (12.05%) and Springer (12.05%) accounted for significant shares. Geographically, China (25.30%) and the USA (15.66%) led in retractions. The primary reasons for retraction included data or result issues (24.10%) and lack of transparency (16.87%). Notably, politically sensitive topics, such as gender dysphoria and vaccine misinformation, garnered high Altmetrics. Inconsistent retraction labelling and a lack of clear watermarks further exacerbated the dissemination of flawed research. Originality/value As the first comprehensive investigation into retracted gender studies literature, this study is original in identifying retraction trends, reasons, timelines and societal influences distinct from other disciplines. This study highlights how inconsistent retraction processes directly undermine research integrity, transparency and scholarly trust within a publicly scrutinised academic domain.