Review of retracted papers in the field of neurology

Abstract

Background and purposeDespite the growing awareness of academic fraud, its prevalence in the field of neurology has not been fully assessed. This review aims to analyze the characteristics of the retracted papers in the field of neurology and the reasons for the retraction to better understand the trends in this area and to assist to avoid retraction incidents.MethodsA total of 79 papers were included, which pertained to 22 countries and 64 journals. The marking methods for retracting original papers included watermarks (89.04%), retracted signs in the text (5.48%) and no prompt (5.48%). The median M (interquartile range [IQR]) of citations in retractions in neurology was 7 (41). Studies continued to be cited after retraction with an M (IQR) of 3 (16). The journal impact factor was between 0 and 157.335, with an M (IQR) of 5.127 (3.668). 45.21% and 31.51% papers were mainly published in the first and second quartile journals, respectively. The M (IQR) time elapsed between publication and retraction was 32 (44) months. The reasons for retraction included two major categories, academic misconduct (79.75%) and academic unintentional mistakes (20.25%).Results and conclusionsThe number of retractions in neurology has been on the rise over the past decade, with fabricated academic misconduct being the main cause of the retractions. Due to the long time lag between publication and retraction, a number of unreliable findings continue to be cited following retraction. In addition to the requisite standards of academic ethics, augmenting research training and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration are crucial in enhancing research integrity.

Against “silent” retractions in neuroscience

“…We stand against this position, arguing that editors ought to respect the criterion of truthfulness in neuroscience so as to promote trustworthiness and informed consent to the scientific enterprise. It is true that if the public were more aware of low-quality research in neuroscience, they might not so readily consent to it, nor is it likely that would cite such research (Wang et al, 2023). There are many cases of data fabrication and exaggerated claims in neuroscience (Daly, 2023a).…”