Albina S Islam, Elizabeth M Mastoloni, John E Fenton, Daniel H Coelho
{"title":"Article Retraction in Otolaryngology Journals: A Thirty Year Analysis.","authors":"Albina S Islam, Elizabeth M Mastoloni, John E Fenton, Daniel H Coelho","doi":"10.1111/coa.14285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To gain insight into the integrity of research in Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery (OHNS) literature through characterising retracted articles, analysing the reason for their retraction, and the trends in the collected data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pubmed, Embase, and Retraction Watch Database were queried for retracted articles published between the dates of 1/31/92 and 9/30/22. Articles with titles relating to OHNS subjects and published in OHNS journals, as determined by Scimago Journal and Country Ranking, were selected for further analysis. Variables recorded included journal name, journal impact factor, article type, article subspecialty subject, reason for retraction, whether re-published, number of authors, time to retraction, and article citations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on title and article content, 245 articles related to the field of OHNS were identified, of which 68 were published in OHNS journals and analysed for reason of retraction. Of those, 16 (23.5%) were replaced due to erratum concerns (spelling, formatting, etc.) rather than content or data-related issues and were excluded. Among the 52 (76.5%) permanent retractions the most common reasons for retraction include article duplication (n = 26), concerns/issues/errors with data (n = 7), and plagiarism (n = 5). The median time between publication and retraction was 2 years (range, 0-19). The median impact factor was 1.64 (range, 0.08-4.68). The median number of citations per article was 7 (range, 0-86).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Retractions continue to occur in the field of OHNS despite increasing education in ethical publication standards and safeguards. There are, however, improved time intervals to retraction indicating improved surveillance of published articles.</p>","PeriodicalId":10431,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Otolaryngology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.14285","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To gain insight into the integrity of research in Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery (OHNS) literature through characterising retracted articles, analysing the reason for their retraction, and the trends in the collected data.
Methods: Pubmed, Embase, and Retraction Watch Database were queried for retracted articles published between the dates of 1/31/92 and 9/30/22. Articles with titles relating to OHNS subjects and published in OHNS journals, as determined by Scimago Journal and Country Ranking, were selected for further analysis. Variables recorded included journal name, journal impact factor, article type, article subspecialty subject, reason for retraction, whether re-published, number of authors, time to retraction, and article citations.
Results: Based on title and article content, 245 articles related to the field of OHNS were identified, of which 68 were published in OHNS journals and analysed for reason of retraction. Of those, 16 (23.5%) were replaced due to erratum concerns (spelling, formatting, etc.) rather than content or data-related issues and were excluded. Among the 52 (76.5%) permanent retractions the most common reasons for retraction include article duplication (n = 26), concerns/issues/errors with data (n = 7), and plagiarism (n = 5). The median time between publication and retraction was 2 years (range, 0-19). The median impact factor was 1.64 (range, 0.08-4.68). The median number of citations per article was 7 (range, 0-86).
Conclusion: Retractions continue to occur in the field of OHNS despite increasing education in ethical publication standards and safeguards. There are, however, improved time intervals to retraction indicating improved surveillance of published articles.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Otolaryngology is a bimonthly journal devoted to clinically-oriented research papers of the highest scientific standards dealing with:
current otorhinolaryngological practice
audiology, otology, balance, rhinology, larynx, voice and paediatric ORL
head and neck oncology
head and neck plastic and reconstructive surgery
continuing medical education and ORL training
The emphasis is on high quality new work in the clinical field and on fresh, original research.
Each issue begins with an editorial expressing the personal opinions of an individual with a particular knowledge of a chosen subject. The main body of each issue is then devoted to original papers carrying important results for those working in the field. In addition, topical review articles are published discussing a particular subject in depth, including not only the opinions of the author but also any controversies surrounding the subject.
• Negative/null results
In order for research to advance, negative results, which often make a valuable contribution to the field, should be published. However, articles containing negative or null results are frequently not considered for publication or rejected by journals. We welcome papers of this kind, where appropriate and valid power calculations are included that give confidence that a negative result can be relied upon.