Retractions in Neuroscience Literature: An Analytical Study Based on Retraction Watch Database

This study analysed the retraction of scientific articles in neuroscience between 1977 and 2026. The Retraction Watch database was utilised as a source, and 1,244 formally retracted documents were selected for analysis. A comprehensive examination of the variables was conducted, encompassing the publication and retraction dates, author affiliation, country of publication and rationale for retraction. The findings indicated that the first retracted article was published in 1977 and the number of retracted papers where in single digit till 2006 (n=8) The number of retracted papers reached triple digit for the first time in 2021 (n=115) and a peak of 200 in 2023. It has been observed that the retractions in neuroscience were very low before 2000 and witnessed a gradual increase from 2005 to 2015. However, after reaching the peak in 2023, the trend sharply reversed, with the number of retracted articles falling to 115 in 2024 and 35 by 2025. China (n=438, 35.21%) represented the largest share of retracted publications, followed by the United States (n=370, 29.74%), and India (n=85, 6.75%). It has been observed that the top 10 countries either individually or with collaboration with other countries published 99.28% of the total retracted publications (n=1235) in the field of neuroscience. There were 986 single-country papers (79.26%) while 258 (20.74%) are multi-country papers which revealed that there is international collaboration in the field of neuroscience research. Retractions in neuroscience has been done by 491 journals and 15 conferences. The highest number of retractions was done by PLoS One (n=57). A large portion comes from major academic publishers like Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley. The top 10 journals retracted 221 articles (17.77%) and Q2 journals retracted the highest (n=102) followed by Q3 journals (n=51), Q4 journals (n=38) and Q1 journals (n=30). The University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA is the topper with the largest number of retracted publications (n=12) followed by North China University of Science and Technology, China (n=11), Central Michigan University, USA (n=10), Kobe Gakuin University, Japan (n=9) and University of Pennsylvania, USA (n=9). Of all the retractions, 286 out of 1244 articles were suspected of unreliable results, comprising 22.99% of the total retractions. This proportion was notably higher than that of other reasons viz., data concerns (n=237), image duplication (n=206), image issues (n=140), data fabrication/falsification (n=116) and paper mill (n=115). This clearly shows that data integrity issues such as unreliable results, data concerns are the biggest problem in neuroscience research. The findings of the study would be highly useful for the stakeholders in the field of neuroscience.

Retraction, research ethics, academic misconduct

1. Bhatt, B. (2021). A multi-perspective analysis of retractions in life sciences. Scientometrics, 126(5), 4039-4054. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bhattacharyya, S, Chatterjee N and Ramanathan A 2025. Understanding the patterns and magnitude of life science publication Retractions in the last four decades. Int. J Educ Integr 21(1): 17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Candal-Pedreira C, Ruano-Ravina A, Rey-Brandariz J, Mourino N, Ravara S, Aguiar P and Perez-Rios M. 2023. Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal. Account Res 30(8), 725-742. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Craig R, Cox A, Tourish D and Thorpe A 2020. Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done?. Res Policy, 49(4): 103930. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Elango B 2022. Characteristics of retracted editorial articles in the biomedical literature. Scientometrics, 127(3),pp.1431-1438: https://doi.org/10.1007 / s11 192-021-04263-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Elango B, Kozak M and Rajendran P. 2019. Analysis of retractions in Indian science. Scientometrics 119, 1081–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03079-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Else H 2024. Biomed retractions have quadrupled in 20 years—Why?. Nature 630(8016): 280-281. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Fang FC, Steen R G and Casadevall A. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(42):17028-17033. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M (2012) A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. Plos One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Islam AS, Mastoloni EM, Fenton J E and Coelho D H 2025. Article Retraction in Otolaryngology Journals: A Thirty Year Analysis. Clin Otolaryngol 50(3): 514-520. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. King, E. G., Oransky, I., Sachs, T. E., Farber, A., Flynn, D. B., Abritis, A., et al. (2018). Analysis of retracted articles in the surgical literature. The American Journal of Surgery, 216(5), 851–855. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Lievore C, Rubbo P, Dos Santos C B, Picinin CT and Pilatti L A 2021. Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities. Scientometrics, 126(8): 6871-6889. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Mena J D, Ndoye M, Cohen A J, Kamal P and Breyer B N 2019. The landscape of urological retractions: the prevalence of reported research misconduct. BJU Int 124(1): 174-179. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Misra D P, Ravindran V and Agarwal V 2018. Integrity of authorship and peer review practices: challenges and opportunities for improvement. J. Korean Med Sci 33(46): https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e287 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Qi Q, Huang J, Wu Y, Pan Y, Zhuang J and Yang X 2024. Recent trends: Retractions of articles in the oncology field. Heliyon, 10(12). https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(24)09038-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Retraction Watch Database (2026). Available at www.retractionwatchdatabase.org. Accessed on 15th April 2026. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Rivera H and da Silva J A T 2021. Retractions, fake peer reviews, and paper mills. J. Korean Med Sci 36(24). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Solomon D, Heckman C and Hubbard D E 2023. Retractions in Scopus: An engineering journal articles investigation. S & TL, 42(3): 353-366. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Stavale R, Ferreira G I, Galvão J A M, Zicker F, Novaes M R C G, Oliveira C M D and Guilhem D. 2019. Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions. PLoS One, 14(4):.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214272 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Steen RG, 2011. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?. J Med Ethics 37 (4): 249-253. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Tourish D and Craig R 2020. Research misconduct in business and management studies: Causes, consequences, and possible remedies. J Manag Inq 29(2): 174-187. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Van Noorden R 2023. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 – A new record. Nature, 624 (21/28):.479. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Vuong Q H, 2020. The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learn Publ 33(2): 119-130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S and Kleinert on behalf of COPE Council 2010. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Int J Polym Anal Charact 15(1): 2-6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Wang, T., Xing, Q.-R., Wang, H., & Chen, W. (2019). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(3), 855–868. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Systemic Failures in Human Neuroscience Trials and How to Fix Them
• A Scoping Review: Neuromodulation in Consumer Buying Behaviour – Mapping the Emerging Landscape
• A Scoping Review: The Role of the Prefrontal Cortex and Corpus Callosum in Consumer Decision-Making Under Dynamic Visual Colour Stimuli
• Ethical Challenges in Neurological Clinical Research in the Era of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Health: A Critical Review