English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article has a dual objective. Firstly, it aims to investigate whethergender diversity in publications reviewed on Pubpeer has an impact on the(non)retraction of those publications. Secondly, it seeks to analyze thereasons for retractions and examine if there are disparities in retractionsbased on male-female collaborations. To achieve this, the study utilized asample of 93,563 publications discussed on Pubpeer spanning the period from2012 to 2021. The findings reveal that among the reviewed publications, 5%(4,513) were retracted. The concentration index and regression results indicatethat publications authored solely by men or led by male authors are 20% to 29%more likely to be retracted compared to those authored solely by women.Regarding the reasons for retractions, the results show that regardless ofgender, authors, when working alone, are more prone to engaging in activitiessuch as fake peer review or plagiarism. Women are more concentrated in imagemanipulation and data errors, while men are more involved in articleduplication. Furthermore, the results demonstrate an inverse relationshipbetween the number of authors and retractions, suggesting that a higher numberof authors may facilitate better publication control and reduce the temptationfor misconduct.

PubPeer and Self-Correction of Science: Male-Led Publications More Prone to Retraction