AB162. SOH25_AB_087. Duplication is the most common cause of retractions in otolaryngology-head & neck surgery (ORL-HNS) journals
Head & Neck Session

AB162. SOH25_AB_087. Duplication is the most common cause of retractions in otolaryngology-head & neck surgery (ORL-HNS) journals

Nyabwire Kaare1, Albina Islam2, Elizabeth Mastoloni2, John Fenton1, Daniel Colho2

1Department of ORL-HND, University of Limerick Medical School, Limerick, Ireland; 2Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Neurosurgery, Physiology and Biophysics, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA

Background: Retraction continues to challenge surgical journals. We aimed to analyse reasons for retraction of articles in otolaryngology head and neck surgery (ORL-HNS) literature.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Retraction Watch Database were queried for retracted articles published between the dates of 1/31/1992 and 9/30/2022. Articles with titles relating to ORL-HNS subjects and published in ORL-HNS 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 ORL-HNS were identified, of which 68 were published in ORL-HNS journals and analyzed the 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 years). The median impact factor was 1.64 (range, 0.08–4.68). The median number of citations per article was 7 (range, 0–86).

Conclusions: Retractions continue to occur in the field of ORL-HNS, however, improved time intervals to retraction indicate improved surveillance of published articles. Authors, if unsure of duplication, should inform editors of the overlap, and the decision should be an editorial one.

Keywords: Duplication; retractions; otolaryngology; surveillance; articles

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

doi: 10.21037/map-25-ab162
Cite this abstract as: Kaare N, Islam A, Mastoloni E, Fenton J, Colho D. AB162. SOH25_AB_087. Duplication is the most common cause of retractions in otolaryngology-head & neck surgery (ORL-HNS) journals. Mesentery Peritoneum 2025;9:AB162.

Article Options

Download Citation

Share