A retrospective analysis of the characteristics of retracted articles about traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine: A protocol

Background: Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) includes a diverse range of practices, products, and therapies outside the scope of conven-tional Western medicine, including acupuncture, Ayurveda, chiropractic care, and homeopathy. Globally, TCIM is widely used and recognized by most World Health Organization member states, and research in this field has grown substantially in recent decades. However, TCIM research is often criticized for methodological weak-nesses and insufficient rigour, raising concerns about its evidence base and credi-bility. Retraction of scientific articles serves as an essential mechanism to safeguard research integrity, alerting the scientific community to serious errors or misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. The increasing number of retractions across biomedical research highlights the importance of understanding their under-lying causes. Studying retracted TCIM publications may provide unique insights into recurring methodological, ethical, or systemic issues specific to this field and inform strategies to strengthen research quality.Objectives: The proposed research protocol will use a retrospective analysis to ana-lyse retracted TCIM articles reported in the Retraction Watch database. Methods: Articles classified under ‘(HSC) Medicine – Alternative’ will be identified, extracted, and compared descriptively against retracted non-TCIM publications. Variables of interest include reasons for retraction, date of retraction, article type, journal, publisher, country, number of authors, paywall status, and time from publi-cation to retraction. Data will be summarized using descriptive statistics, with explor-atory comparisons made between TCIM and non-TCIM retractions.Conclusions: The findings will provide the first comprehensive overview of TCIM retractions, offering valuable insights into patterns of flawed research in the field.