Who gets retracted? Gendered patterns in academic article retractions in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47989/ir31356229Abstract
Introduction. Scopus-indexed publications are key indicators of academic prestige, career advancement, and financial rewards in Indonesia. However, the rapid expansion of publication output driven by performance-based policies has raised concerns about research integrity and misconduct. Retraction cases offer a useful lens for examining these dynamics. This study explores gender-related patterns in retractions team composition and causes of retraction.
Method. This study analyzed 196 retracted articles by Indonesian scholars and indexed in Scopus between 2017 and 2024. Data were obtained from the Retraction Watch Database (retrieved March 20, 2025). Author gender composition was classified gender-related patterns of retraction.
Analysis. Pearson’s chi-square tests assessed the pattern between gender composition and four variables: reason for retraction, publisher type, article category, and disciplinary field.
Results. The analysis identified patterns in retracted publications across different gender compositions. Differences in the reasons for retraction indicate tendencies in research and publication practices. These findings offer a descriptive account of how team composition may correspond with retraction patterns.
Conclusion. This study examines gendered retraction patterns in the Global South within broader academic practices, not merely as indicators of wrongdoing. Understanding these patterns may encourage more nuanced reflections on research quality, accountability, and scholarly performance.
References
Ahmar, A. S., Kurniasih, N., Irawan, D. E., Sutiksno, D. U., Napitupulu, D., Setiawan, M. I., ... & Abraham, J. (2018). Lecturers’ understanding on indexing databases of SINTA, DOAJ, Google Scholar, SCOPUS, and Web of Science: A study of Indonesians. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 954(1), 012026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/954/1/012026
Bartol, T., Budimir, G., Dekleva-Smrekar, D., Pusnik, M., & Juznic, P. (2014). Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia. Scientometrics, 98, 1491–1504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8
Bonaccorsi, A. (2020). Two decades of experience in research assessment in Italy. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.27
Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127556
Fry, C. V., Lynham, J., & Tran, S. (2023). Ranking researchers: Evidence from Indonesia. Research Policy, 52(5), 104753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104753
Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLOS ONE, 7(10), e44118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Hesselmann, F., Graf, V., Schmidt, M., & Reinhart, M. (2017). The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology, 65(6), 814–845. https://doi.org/10.1177/001139211666380
Irawan, D. E., Abraham, J., Ridlo, I. A., Nugraha, H. D., Wekke, I. S., Fuad, A., ... & Seftyono, C. (2023). Comments on “Ranking researchers: Evidence from Indonesia” by Fry et al. (2023). Research Policy, 52(7), 104817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104817
Kementerian Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia. (2017). Peraturan Menteri Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 Tahun 2017 tentang pemberian tunjangan profesi dosen dan tunjangan kehormatan profesor [Regulation of the Minister of Research, Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia Number 20 of 2017 on professional allowance for lecturers and honorary allowance for professors].
Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2022). Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(3), 859–887. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00187
Maddi, A., Monneau, E., Guaspare-Cartron, C., Gargiulo, F., & Dubois, M. (2025). The retraction gender gap: Are mixed teams more vulnerable? Quantitative Science Studies, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00353
Lovakov, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2025). Scientometric indicators in research evaluation and research misconduct: Analysis of the Russian university excellence initiative. Scientometrics, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05269-3
Moed, H. F., Markusova, V., & Akoev, M. (2018). Trends in Russian research output indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. Scientometrics, 116, 1153–1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2769-8
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
Meho, L. I. (2025). Gaming the metrics? Bibliometric anomalies and the integrity crisis in global university rankings. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05
Naddaf, M. (2025). ‘Integrity index’ flags universities with high retraction rates. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01727-3
Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063129302300200
Rousseau, R., Egghe, L., & Guns, R. (2018). Becoming metric-wise: A bibliometric guide for researchers. Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2016-0-04176-4
Retraction Watch. (2024a). Controversial pyramid paper retracted when authors turn out to have radiocarbon-dated nearby dirt. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/03/20/controversial-pyramid-paper-retracted-when-authors-turn-out-to-have-radiocarbon-dated-nearby-dirt/
Retraction Watch. (2024b). Dean in Indonesia resigns following Retraction Watch report. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/04/19/dean-in-indonesia-resigns-following-retraction-watch-report/
Troncoso, E., Ganga-Contreras, F., & Briceño, M. (2022). Incentive policies for scientific publications in the state universities of Chile. Publications, 10(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10020020
Tempo. (2024a). Kumba Digdowiseiso publikasi 160 jurnal di 2024, KIIKA duga ada praktik yang salah [Kumba Digdowiseiso publishes 160 journals in 2024, KIIKA suspects misconduct]. https://www.tempo.co/politik/kumba-digdowiseiso-publikasi-160-jurnal-di-2024-kika-duga-ada-praktik-yang-salah--67121
Tempo. (2024b). Publikasi ilmiah situs Gunung Padang dicabut dari jurnal, ini alasannya [Scientific publication on Gunung Padang site retracted from journal—here’s why]. https://www.tempo.co/sains/publikasi-ilmiah-situs-gunung-padang-dicabut-dari-jurnal-ini-alasannya-75378
The Center for Scientific Integrity. (2025). The Retraction Watch Database. Retrieved 11 March, 2025, from http://retractiondatabase.org
Suyitno. (2023). Scopus dicinta, Scopus dicerca. Media Indonesia. https://mediaindonesia.com/opini/561347/scopus-dicinta-scopus-dicerca
Zhang, L., & Sivertsen, G. (2023). The new research assessment reform in China and its implementation. In Towards a new research era (pp. 239–252).
Zheng, E. T., Fu, H. Z., Thelwall, M., & Fang, Z. (2025). Do male leading authors retract more articles than female leading authors? Journal of Informetrics, 19(3), 101682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2025.101682
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rusdan Kamil, Dr Rahmi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
