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%) authors to facilitate linkage of retractions with impact metrics at the individual author 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 authors 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 prevalence ratio (R) of women versus men to have at least one retraction. Multivariable logistic regression were fitted to estimate adjusted associations, reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Gender could be classified for 8,267,888 authors. Among highly cited authors, 3.1% 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 of retractions were at least one-third lower than men’s (R < 0.7) in Biology, Biomedical Research, and Psychology (R < 0.7), but higher (R > 1.3) in Economics, Engineering, and Information and Communication Technologies. Among highly cited authors, younger cohorts showed increasingly higher rates of retractions 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). In multivariable analyses, differences were minimal, if any, for women versus men in having ≥ 1 retraction (among all authors OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94–0.97; among highly cited authors OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.89–1.03). By contrast, retractions were strongly associated with publication volume (per +1 unit log10 papers: OR: 8.69, 95% CI: 8.54–8.85; OR: 11.36, 95% CI: 10.40–12.40), non-high-income countries (OR: 4.17, 95% CI: 4.10–4.24; OR: 2.56, 95% CI: 2.39–2.75), and recent career age, especially first publication ≥ 2012 (OR: 2.91, 95% CI: 2.83–2.99; OR: 4.67, 95% CI: 3.89–5.62) among all authors and among highly cited authors, respectively. Compared with Clinical Medicine, most fields had lower adjusted odds, with Biomedical Research among highly cited authors being a notable exception (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.25–1.47). Conclusion Our analysis shows no major gender differences in retraction rates overall, but field-specific differences may exist. Field, career age, country, and publication volume are stronger correlates of retraction. Structural and contextual factors likely drive retraction patterns and warrant further investigation.