ArticlePloS one2025
Gender disparities among authors of retracted publications in medical journals: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGender disparities in scientific authorship are well documented, yet little is known about gender representation among authors of retracted publications.
methodsWe analyzed 878 retracted publications from 131 high-impact medical journals across nine clinical disciplines (anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology). Gender was inferred using Gender API for all, first, and last authors. Two analytic samples were constructed based on prediction confidence thresholds (≥60% and ≥70%). We examined gender distribution across authorship positions, number of retractions per author, and disciplinary representation. Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-squared tests were used to assess group differences. Gender proportions were compared with publication benchmarks from 2008-2017, restricting retraction data to the same period for comparability.
resultsAmong 4,136 authors, 3,909 had full first names, and gender could be assigned to 3,865 (98.9%). In the sample with prediction confidence ≥60% (n = 3,743), 863 (23.1%) were identified as women. They accounted for 16.5% (123/747) of first and 12.7% (87/687) of last authors. They had significantly fewer retractions per author and were less likely to have >5 retractions (all authors: 3 women [8.1%] vs 34 men [91.9%], p < 0.001). Across most disciplines, their representation was below publication benchmarks. Dermatology (retractions = 80.0%, publications = 48.9-51.8%) and radiology (retractions = 40.0%, publications = 31.0-36.8%) were exceptions among first authors, while pediatrics (retractions = 50.0%, publications = 37.0%-42.6%) was an exception among last authors, though all based on small numbers.
conclusionsWomen are markedly underrepresented among authors of retracted publications, particularly in cases involving multiple retractions. Further research is needed to clarify underlying mechanisms.
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.