Retractions in Otolaryngology Publications.

Abstract

Objective: To characterize trends in otolaryngology (ear, nose, and throat [ENT]) retractions, identify underlying causes, and compare retraction rates with similar specialties.

Design, setting, and participants: A scoping review of retracted articles published from January 1, 1974, through December 31, 2023, was carried out. Retraction data were obtained from the Crossref/Retraction Watch database and corresponding abstracts were retrieved from PubMed. Publication data were obtained from Scopus. All retracted articles related to ENT were identified. Articles from neurosurgery and ophthalmology were similarly retrieved for comparison. Articles withdrawn for routine updates, expressions of concern, reinstatements, and corrections were excluded. The data were obtained on December 3, 2024.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcomes were annual retraction rate (proportion of retracted articles per total published articles) and reasons for retraction (categorized as intentional data misconduct, intentional procedural misconduct, unintentional data errors, unintentional procedural errors, or unknown). Secondary measures included time from publication to retraction and comparisons with neurosurgery and ophthalmology retraction rates.

Results: Of 481 215 ENT articles, 471 (0.10%) were retracted. Retractions increased over time, peaking in 2022 with a retraction rate of 0.42%. Among retracted ENT articles, the most common reasons were intentional data misconduct (233 [49.50%]) and intentional procedural misconduct (210 [44.60%]). Articles with first authors from China accounted for the largest share (243 [51.60%]) of these retractions. Basic science head and neck cancer research represented the largest subspecialty category (161 [34.20%]). The median (IQR) time to retraction was 21.8 (10.8-55.3) months.

Conclusions and relevance: This analysis found that retractions in ENT literature have increased over 5 decades, predominantly driven by intentional misconduct. These findings highlight the need for enhanced oversight, training, and editorial vigilance to maintain the integrity of ENT research and protect patient welfare.