Retractions of publications on central nervous system tumors based on the Retraction Watch Database.

BACKGROUND: Retraction serves as a critical mechanism for correcting flawed publications and preserving the integrity of the scientific literature. Systematic analysis focused on retractions in Central Nervous System (CNS) tumor research is still lacking. This study characterized retracted CNS tumor publications regarding temporal trends, geographic distribution, retraction reasons, citation patterns, and retraction lag. METHODOLOGY: Retraction data were downloaded from the Crossref/Retraction Watch Database on December 31, 2025. CNS tumor‑related retractions were identified using tumor terms derived from the 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System. Eligible records were screened manually, and tumor type, article type, retraction reason, first-author country, author count and time to retraction were extracted. Citation data were retrieved from Web of Science, and journal impact factor (JIF) and quartile were obtained from the 2024 Journal Citation Reports. Descriptive statistics, the Mann-Kendall test and Kruskal‑Wallis test were used. RESULTS: 582 CNS tumor articles were included. CNS tumor retractions increased over time and peaked in 2023. "Gliomas, glioneuronal tumors, and neuronal tumors" accounted for 74.57% (434/582). 80.58% (469/582) were retracted due to misconduct. In terms of absolute numbers, China was the leading first‑author country, followed by USA and India. Basic research accounted for 75.26% (438/582). The median time to retraction was 805.5 days (IQR: 423.25-1,711 days). A total of 515 articles received at least one citation (total citations 12,151), and 89.71% (462/515) had citation after retraction. The median pre‑retraction, post‑retraction, and total citations were 5 (IQR: 1-17), 3 (IQR: 1-7), and 10 (IQR: 3-24), respectively. Significant differences were observed in normalized citation counts and retraction lag across most retraction reason categories, JIF and quartiles, article types, author counts, and first‑author countries. CONCLUSIONS: CNS tumor retractions have increased markedly as the primary driver. The persistent post-retraction citation of flawed research highlights a critical gap threatening evidence-based neuro-oncology.