Retractions in tuberculosis research: analyzing patterns, reasons, and temporal trends from 1993 to 2023

The integrity of tuberculosis research is critical for global public health, yet the phenomenon of article retractions in this field remains underexplored. This study examines patterns, reasons, and temporal trends of retracted tuberculosis-related research articles. A comprehensive analysis of retracted tuberculosis articles published between 1993 and 2023 was conducted using data from the Retraction Watch database and scholarly databases, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science. Journal characteristics, publisher distribution, retraction reasons, and keyword patterns were systematically analyzed. Concordance between official retraction notices and post-publication peer review discussions on PubPeer was assessed. The analysis revealed 150 retracted tuberculosis articles, with minimal retractions from 1993 to 2009 but substantial increases from 2010 onwards, peaking at 24 retractions in 2021. Retractions were distributed across all journal quartiles (Q1-Q4) and major publishers include Hindawi, Elsevier, Springer, and Taylor & Francis. The most frequent retraction reasons were unreliable results(n = 32), data concerns(n = 31), and journal investigations (n = 29). Most retraction notices cited 2-4 concurrent reasons from 60 unique categories, indicating complex integrity violations. Keyword analysis revealed predominance of molecular and genetic research, with "genetic," "cell," and "protein" as dominant terms. Animal models and drug development studies featured prominently. Comparison between Retraction Watch and PubPeer showed 80.3% concordance, though 15.2% of cases revealed discrepancies between official and community-identified concerns. Tuberculosis research retractions have increased substantially in recent years, affecting publications across quality tiers. The high-complexity nature of molecular tuberculosis research may contribute to vulnerability to data integrity issues. Post-publication peer review platforms provide valuable complementary oversight to traditional editorial processes.