ArticleOTO open
Evaluating the Clarity of Retractions and the Spread of Misinformation in Otolaryngology.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Scientific retractions: causes, processes, and implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clarity of retraction notices in otolaryngology journals and examine the relationship between retraction notice clarity and improper post-retraction citations. Study Design: A retrospective analysis of retracted articles in otolaryngology journals from journal inception to August 1, 2024. Setting: Articles were selected from leading otolaryngology journals with citation data retrieved from major academic databases. Methods: Retracted articles were identified using the Retraction Watch Database. Citation patterns were analyzed through Google Scholar and Scopus. Retraction notices were evaluated for adherence to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. The study included 80 retracted articles, with 1398 citations in Google Scholar and 714 in Scopus. Primary outcomes included the proportion of retraction notices meeting COPE guidelines and the rate of improper post-retraction citations. Results: Retraction notices adhered to COPE guidelines in 52.5% of cases (N = 42). Among 80 retracted articles, only 42.5% were labeled as retracted across all platforms. Alarmingly, 98.2% of citations that occurred after articles were retracted did not acknowledge their retracted status. Clearer retraction notices correlated with fewer improper citations. Proper labeling across all platforms led to a 52.89% reduction in citation rates, whereas any missing labels resulted in only a 28.72% reduction. Conclusion: Clarity in retraction notices significantly impacts improper citation rates. Standardized, prominently displayed retraction notices adhering to ethical guidelines can reduce misinformation. Strengthening retraction practices and improving database integration are recommended to enhance the effectiveness of retractions and maintain scientific integrity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.