关键词: 脑血管病; 撤稿; 撤稿原因; 学术不端

Abstract: Objective  To analyze the characteristics of retracted papers in the field of cerebrovascular diseases and provide foundational data for the quality control of publications in this field.
Methods  By keyword search and screening the “Retraction Watch Database”, a dataset of retracted papers in the field of cerebrovascular diseases was established. The reasons for retraction were classified according to previous publications and policy documents. The citations of the retracted papers were searched through the Web of Science. The retracted papers were classified and analyzed based on article types, publication and retraction date, publication journals and publishers, citation status, national/regional distribution and international collaborations, retraction time lag, retraction reasons, and scientific misconduct-related reasons.
Results  A total of 386 retracted papers were included in this study. The results showed that retracted papers were mainly research articles, totaling 334 (86.53%). There were 273 papers (70.73%) hat were retracted between 2021 and 2024. A total of 151 journals and 46 publishers were involved in these retractions, with five journals having a retraction count of≥10 articles. The number of retractions by the top nine publishers totaled 286 (74.09%). The retractions involved 31 countries/regions, with three countries having a retraction count of≥10 articles, namely China, Japan, and the United States. The average retraction time lag was 1218.09 days, median retraction time lag was 609.50 (338.25-1517.00) d. The average citation count was 19.61 times, median citation count was 8.00 (2.00-24.75) times. The analysis of retraction reasons revealed that “scientific misconduct” was the most common reason, with 295 papers (76.42%). It was followed by “non-reproducibility” and “investigation”, with 242 papers (62.69%) and 232 papers (60.10%), respectively. Among the 295 papers retracted for “scientific misconduct”, “problems with peer review” and “paper mills” were the primary reasons, with 129 papers (43.73%) and 110 papers (37.29%), respectively. The analysis of retraction reasons also showed that the retracted papers involved 79 specific reasons, with “journal/publisher investigation” being the most frequent reason, involving 183 papers (47.41%). 
Conclusions  In recent years, a large number of retractions occurred in the field of cerebrovascular diseases. The situation of scientific misconduct in the retracted papers is serious. Therefore, research in the field of cerebrovascular diseases should pay attention to the issue of scientific integrity.

Key words: Cerebrovascular disease; Retraction; Retraction reason; Scientific misconduct