Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23532977›Full record

ArticlemBio2013

Are men more likely than women to commit scientific misconduct? Maybe, maybe not.

Anna Kaatz, Paul N Vogelman, Molly Carnes

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Meta-assessment of bias in science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Why is John More Likely to Become Department Chair Than Jennifer?Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association · 2015
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anna Kaatz
Paul N Vogelman
Molly Carnes

Funding

Virtual Games for STEMM Faculty to Break the Bias HabitDP4GM096822 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI CARNES, MOLLY L. · 2010 to 2010
$2.0M
Advancement of Women in STEMM: A Multi-level Research and Action ProjectR01GM088477 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI CARNES, MOLLY L. · 2009 to 2012
$1.2M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS DP4 GM096822NIGMS NIH HHS DP4 GM096822NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM088477
6 · The paper itself

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

FemaleHumansMaleResearch PersonnelScientific Misconduct

Identifiers

PMID23532977
PMCPMC3622921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.