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

摘要： 目的 分析脑血管病领域撤稿论文特征，为脑血管病领域论文质量控制提供基础数据。
方法 通过关键词检索和筛选撤稿观察数据库，形成脑血管病领域被撤稿论文分析数据集，参考既往文献和政策文件对撤稿原因进行分类；通过Web of Science查询被撤稿论文的引用情况；按照文章类型、发表和撤稿时间、发表期刊及出版商、被引用情况、国家/地区分布及国际合作情况、撤稿时滞、撤稿原因及学术不端相关原因对被撤稿论文进行归类和分析。
结果 本研究共纳入386篇被撤稿论文，结果显示：被撤稿论文以研究性论文为主，共计334篇（86.53%）；撤稿时间集中在2021—2024年的论文有273篇（70.73%）；涉及撤稿期刊151种，出版商46个，撤稿数量≥10篇的期刊有5种，撤稿数量排名前9的出版商撤稿数量共计286篇（74.09%）；涉及撤稿国家/地区31个，其中撤稿数量≥10篇的国家有3个，分别为中国、日本和美国。被撤稿文章的平均撤稿时滞为1218.09 d，中位撤稿时滞为609.50（338.25～1517.00）d；平均被引次数为19.61次，中位被引用次数为8.00（2.00～24.75）次。撤稿原因分析显示，因“学术不端”被撤稿论文最多，共计295篇（76.42%）；其次是“不可重复”和“调查”，分别为242篇（62.69%）和232篇（60.10%）。295篇因“学术不端”被撤稿论文中，“同行评议问题”和“论文工厂”是最主要的撤稿原因，分别为129篇（43.73%）和110篇（37.29%）。撤稿原因分析还显示被撤稿论文涉及79种具体撤稿原因，其中“期刊/出版商调查”是出现频率最高的原因，涉及论文183篇（47.41%）。
结论 近年来脑血管病领域撤稿事件多发，被撤稿论文中学术不端问题形势严峻，因此脑血管病领域研究需重视科研诚信问题。

关键词: 脑血管病; 撤稿; 撤稿原因; 学术不端