02279nas a2200301   4500000000100000000000100001008003900002260001700041653001900058653001700077653001500094653002100109653002600130653002600156653002300182653003400205100001900239700002300258700002800281700002100309700002300330245014700353856008200500300001300582490000700595520136100602022001401963       0                             d  cOct 30, 202510aanimal studies10aBrain damage10aHemorrhage10aMedical journals10aScientific misconduct10aScientific publishing10aSystematic reviews10aTraumatic injury risk factors1 aRené Aquarius1 aMerel van de Voort1 aHieronymus D. Boogaarts1 aP. Manon Reesink1 aKimberley E. Wever00aHigh prevalence of articles with image-related problems in animal studies of subarachnoid hemorrhage and low rates of correction by publishers  uhttps://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3003438  ae30034380 v233 aScientific progress relies on science’s capacity for self-correction. If erroneous articles remain unchallenged in the publication record, they can mislead future research and undermine evidence-based decision-making. All articles included in a systematic review of animal studies on early brain injury after subarachnoid hemorrhage were analyzed for image-related issues. We included 608 articles, of which 243 articles were identified as problematic (40.0%). Of the 243 problematic articles, 55 (22.6%) have been corrected, 7 (2.9%) have received an expression of concern, 5 (2.1%) were marked with the Taylor & Francis under investigation pop-up, and 19 (7.8%) were retracted. In 9 of the 55 corrected articles (16.4%), new problems were found after correction or not all issues were resolved in the correction. Most (n = 213, 87.7%) problematic articles had a corresponding author affiliated to an institute from China. Our results show that the self-correcting mechanisms in science have stalled in this field of research. Our findings provide insight in the prevalence of image-related issues and can help publishers to take appropriate action. We can only uphold science’s capacity for self-correction when problematic articles are actively identified by peers, and when publishers take swift and adequate action to repair the scientific record.  a1545-7885