ArticlemBio2013
Are men more likely than women to commit scientific misconduct? Maybe, maybe not.
Article in mBio, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-assessment of bias in science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Pooled it
- Shaping the Field: A Review of the Use of Theory in Research on Research Integrity.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Review
- Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 2023.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Women Are Underrepresented Among Authors of Retracted Publications: Retrospective Study of 134 Medical Journals.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- COVID-19 retracted publications on retraction watch: A systematic survey of their pre-prints and citations.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Perceptions of Pressures to Alter or Misrepresent Time Allocation Among Clinician-Researchers With NIH Career Development Awards.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2020Article
- Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Exploring the characteristics, global distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants: a literature survey.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2018Article
- Why is John More Likely to Become Department Chair Than Jennifer?Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association · 2015Review
- Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity.PloS one · 2015Article
- Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign.PLoS medicine · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In their study published in January 2013 in mBio, Fang et al. reviewed records from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and found more cases of scientific misconduct committed by men than women, particularly by faculty (F. C. Fang, J. W. Bennett, and A. Casadevall, mBio 4:1-3, 2013). Powerful social norms shape the way men and women behave, and implicit gender schemas can lead to different evaluation standards for men and women for tasks stereotypically linked to one gender. It is possible that norms for acceptable male and female behavior could lead to a lower threshold for men than women to engage in the risky behavior of scientific misconduct. It is also possible that women and men commit scientific fraud at the same rate but that, because crime is a male-gendered domain, evaluators require more proof of the criminal "competence" of women for an investigation to rise to the level of an ORI case or that female gender norms for likeability and a lower apology threshold more often prevent escalation of women's fraud beyond a local level. Male scientists also have more opportunity to commit fraud than female scientists because they receive more NIH research funding--a finding that may also be influenced by gender schemas. We cannot conclude from the ORI data that men are more likely than women to risk the consequences of committing scientific misconduct simply because risk taking aligns with male gender stereotypes. Neither can we conclude that because men are more likely than women to commit fraud in other contexts, men are also more likely than women to commit scientific fraud. We can conclude, however, that scientific misconduct, regardless of who commits it, diminishes all who contribute to the scientific enterprise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.