Errata and Corrigenda in the OHNS Literature

Abstract

Objectives: To analyze trends in error publication in the top Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery ( OHNS) journals. Methods: A retrospective bibliometric analysis utilizing journal-specific search engines of the top 30 OHNS journals (by impact factor) were queried for “errata OR erratum OR corrigenda OR corrigendum OR correction OR corrections,” utilizing errors published between 2000 and 2023. Corrections were classified into “erratum” for errors originating from the journal and “corrigendum” for errors originating from the author. Error severity was categorized as trivial, minor, or major, based on the magnitude of their impact on outcomes or their interpretation by the reader. Results: Of the 739 analyzed errors, 62.5% (n = 462) were errata and 37.5% (n = 277) corrigenda, averaging 26.39 (±27.5) errors per journal. There was no correlation between impact factor and error occurrence ( P = .979). Trends demonstrated growing numbers of errors published over the years. Mean duration between the publication date of the original article and the error was 10.8 months (±19.4 months), but there was no significant correlation between impact factor and this duration ( P = .953). Most corrected articles were original research articles (n = 568, 76.9%), predominantly with the first author from the United States (n = 262, 36.1%). Most errors involved authorship (n = 273, 36.9%) and were “Trivial” in severity (n = 544, 73.6%). However, 72 (9.7%) errors were “Major” and altered the article’s findings or interpretation significantly. Conclusion: A multitude of errors exist in the otolaryngology field. Despite most being insignificant and affecting authorship, roughly 10% significantly affect an article’s conclusions/outcomes. Level of Evidence: 4