Abstract: In the current landscape of scientific research, the rampant occurrence of ethical lapses has evolved into a formidable global predicament. This study, with the Retraction Watch Database (RWD) as its cornerstone, embarked on a comprehensive and profound exploration of the extant situation, distinctive characteristics, and efficacious governance strategies concerning ethical misconduct within retracted papers. The RWD, renowned for its extensive coverage and updates in the domain of retraction information, furnished an invaluable data reservoir for this investigative endeavor. The research methodology entailed the meticulous crafting of a Python crawler program, which was deployed to extract papers bearing a retraction status as of December 31, 2023. Through a painstaking and detailed data analysis process, a multitude of crucial facets were scrutinized. These encompassed the chronological distribution of retractions, the geographical provenance and authorial origins, the associations with journals and publishers, the disciplinary dispersion, and the fundamental causative factors underlying retractions. The study's revelations were both significant and thought-provoking. It was ascertained that the tally of retractions stemming from ethical misconduct has experienced a remarkable upsurge since 2019. China, in particular, emerged as the nation with the highest number of retractions, dwarfing that of other countries, trailed by the United States, Japan, Germany, and Russia. The preponderant triggers for retractions encompassed the dearth of ethical approvals for human and animal experiments, infringements of authorial ethical norms, and the non-existence of patient informed consent. Among the top 10 retracted journals, the lion's share was affiliated with Hindawi Publishing and predominantly belonged to the SCIE Q2 and Q3 open access category. The disciplinary distribution of retracted papers was conspicuously skewed towards the health sciences and basic life sciences. The characteristics of ethical misconduct in retractions manifested themselves in diverse and intricate ways. To begin with, it has crystallized into a global concern, with China occupying the unenviable position of the epicenter in terms of retraction volume. Secondly, SCIE Q2 and Q3 open access journals, in tandem with Hindawi Publishing, functioned as the principal conduits for such retractions. Thirdly, there were pronounced disparities in the magnitude of ethical misconduct across diverse disciplines, with medicine and life sciences bearing the brunt. Lastly, the causative factors for retractions were not only diverse but also intertwined with other forms of academic misconduct, presenting a complex web of issues. In response to the high prevalence of retractions due to ethical misconduct in China, the study put forth a series of well-targeted and comprehensive governance strategies. Paramount among these was the imperative to fortify the construction of the scientific and technological ethics governance system. This entailed the seamless integration of legal regulations, normative standards, and self-imposed ethical constraints. Concurrently, the implementation and augmentation of ethical regulation throughout the entire life cycle of scientific research activities, spanning from the inception of a project to its implementation and ultimate publication, was deemed of utmost importance. Moreover, the need to deepen the reform of the scientific research management and academic evaluation mechanisms was emphasized to cultivate a salubrious research milieu. By effectuating these strategies, the study aspired to foster responsible scientific research and reinforce the governance framework of scientific and technological ethics.