Retraction of Neurosurgical Publications: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES: Despite the increasing awareness of scientific fraud, no attempt has been made to assess its prevalence in neurosurgery. The aim of our review was to assess the chronologic trend, reasons, research type/design, and country of origin of retracted neurosurgical publications. METHODS: Three independent reviewers searched the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases using neurosurgical keywords for retracted articles from 1995 to 2016. Archives of retracted articles (retractionwatch.com) and the independent Web sites of neurosurgical journals were also searched. Data including the journal, impact factor, reason for retraction, country of origin, and citations were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 97 studies were included for data extraction. Journal impact factor ranged from 0.57 to 35.03. Most studies ( 61) were retracted within the last 5 years. The most common reason for retraction was because of a duplicated publication found elsewhere (26), followed closely by plagiarism (22), or presenting fraudulent data (14). Other reasons included scientific errors/mistakes, author misattribution, and compromised peer review. Articles originated from several countries and some were widely cited. CONCLUSIONS: Retractions of neurosurgical publications are increasing significantly, mostly because of issues of academic integrity, including duplicate publishing and plagiarism. Implementation of more transparent data-sharing repositories and thorough screening of data before manuscript submission, as well as additional educational programs for new researchers, may help mitigate these issues in the future.