"This is a really interesting, creative and robust study,"
"The article invites us to dig into issues like negotiations about authorship and the likelihood of scrutiny."
"women are still underrepresented in senior academic roles, lead fewer projects, and therefore may be less exposed to the kinds of responsibilities (and risks) that are more commonly associated with retractions"
An analysis of nearly 900 retracted medical journal articles from 2008–2017 found women in 23% of author slots, 16.5% of first-author slots, and 12.7% of last-author slots. An AI tool inferred gender from first names and a manual check of 200 names found no mismatches. Gender-prediction tools are imperfect, do not capture non-binary identities, and can be less accurate for non-Western names. By contrast, women accounted for 41–45% of first authors and 26–33% of last authors across all articles from the same journals and period. A possible explanation is that women are underrepresented in senior academic roles, lead fewer projects, and therefore have less exposure to responsibilities and risks commonly associated with retractions.
Read at Nature
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]