bioRxivScientific Communication & EducationPreprint
Are female scientists underrepresented in self-correcting science for honest error?
M. D. Ribeiro, J. Mena-Chalco, K. d. A. Rocha, M. Pedrotti, P. Menezes, S. M. Vasconcelos
Abstract
Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposure of ones own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data is scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, letters, and others, from the Retraction Watch Database (2010-2021). We screened the dataset collected for research articles retracted for honest error, excluding retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We then categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Gender imbalances of retraction prevalence among highly cited authors and among all authors
Stefania Boccia, Antonio Cristiano, … John P. A. Ioannidis·Research Integrity and Peer ReviewPeer-reviewed·Sep 30, 2026
- Retractions and rewards in science: An open question for reviewers and funders
M. D. Ribeiro, M. Kalichman, S. M. Vasconcelos·bioRxiv·May 31, 2022
- An exploratory analysis of 4844 withdrawn articles and their retraction notes.
C. S. Toma, L. Padureanu·bioRxiv·Sep 30, 2021
- Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators including retraction data
John P. A. Ioannidis, Angelo Maria Pezzullo, … Jeroen Baas·bioRxiv·Sep 16, 2024
- Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science
D. R. Grimes·bioRxiv·Jul 17, 2023
- Persistent Underrepresentation of Women’s Science in High Profile Journals
Yiqin Alicia Shen, Jason M. Webster, … Ione Fine·bioRxiv·Mar 8, 2018