Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2025

Learning Modern Laryngeal Surgery in a Dissection Laboratory
Published on: March 18, 2020
Retracted Publications in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: What Mistakes Are Being Made?
Hannaan S Choudhry1, Sugosh M Anur2, Hassan S Choudhry1
1Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Newark New Jersey USA.
Objectives:
Retraction of publications is critical to maintaining scientific integrity, yet there is a lack of research on its occurrence in Otolaryngology. This study investigates characteristics, trends, and reasons for retraction of publications in otolaryngology journals.
Study Design:
Bibliometric analysis.
Setting:
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science.
Methods:
A PubMed search for publications retracted during 1990 to 2022 from the top 60 journals with the subject "Otorhinolaryngology" using Scopus' CiteScore was performed. Publications were excluded if they were not in English, had missing information or did not have available abstracts or full-text. Publication and retraction dates, journal, country of origin, citation counts, journal impact factor (JIF), topic, and reason for retraction were recorded. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to identify potential associations in the data.
Results:
Fifty-three publications were included. The 2020s had the highest number of retractions per year (4.33), with publications being retracted on average, 35 months after initial publication. The most common retracted topic and country of origin were head and neck (26.4%) and China (17.0%), respectively. Most publications were retracted because of plagiarism or duplicate publication (52.8%). Mean citation count was 6.92 ± 8.32 and mean JIF was 2.80 ± 1.35. Citation count was positively associated with months until retraction (r = .432, P = .001). There was no significant correlation between months to retraction and JIF (r = .022, P = .878).
Conclusion:
The most cited reasons for retraction were plagiarism and duplicate publication. An understanding of the reasons for retraction can better position journals to enforce more meticulous review standards and reduce such publications from being published.
Level Of Evidence:
Level 4.
More Related Videos
06:13Endoscopic Septoplasty with Limited Two-line Resection: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Septal Deviation
Published on: June 20, 2018
09:07Author Spotlight: Advancing Endoscopic Ossiculoplasty – Techniques, Innovations, and Practical Guidance for Clinical Integration
Published on: January 26, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Mismatch Repair
The Cochlea
The Vestibular System