An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature.

INTRODUCTION: The output of scholarly publications in scientific literature has increased exponentially in recent years. This increase in literature has been accompanied by an increase in retractions. Although some of these may be attributed to publishing errors, many are the result of unsavory research practices. The purposes of this study were to identify the number of retracted articles in nursing and reasons for the retractions, analyze the retraction notices, and determine the length of time for an article in nursing to be retracted. DESIGN: This was an exploratory study. METHODS: A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Retraction Watch databases was conducted to identify retracted articles in nursing and their retraction notices. RESULTS: Between 1997 and 2022, 123 articles published in the nursing literature were retracted. Ten different reasons for retraction were used to categorize these articles with one-third of the retractions (n = 37, 30.1%) not specifying a reason. Sixty-eight percent (n = 77) were retracted because of an actual or a potential ethical concern: duplicate publication, data issues, plagiarism, authorship issues, and copyright. CONCLUSION: Nurses rely on nursing-specific scholarly literature as evidence for clinical decisions. The findings demonstrated that retractions are increasing within published nursing literature. In addition, it was evident that retraction notices do not prevent previously published work from being cited. This study addressed a gap in knowledge about article retractions specific to nursing.

Associations between weather-related data and influenza reports: A pilot study and related policy implications.

AIM: The purpose of this retrospective, correlational pilot study was to explore the relationship between historical weekly weather data including temperature, dew point, humidity, barometric pressure, visibility, and cloud cover compared to weekly influenza-like illness reports over a four year period. BACKGROUND: Climate and weather-related conditions may affect the viral activity and transmission of influenza, although this relationship has not been widely studied in nursing. Some research suggests that there are causal links between cold temperatures, low indoor humidity, minimal sun exposure, and influenza outbreaks. Additionally, rapid weather variability in a warming climate can increase influenza epidemic risk. METHODS: Data from a local public health district were extracted and used to correlate with weekly weather averages for the area. RESULTS: Findings showed that current influenza reports are significantly associated with temperature and visibility, both lagged two weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Though more research is needed, nurses must understand, recognize, and act upon weather and climate factors that affect the health of populations. With a greater understanding of the relationship between weather and influenza-like illness, nurses and other healthcare providers can potentially work to respond to and mitigate the consequences of weather-related illness as well as anticipate and prepare for increased flu burden. Furthermore, nurses can remain engaged in climate protective initiatives and policy development at their local community and/or organizational levels to underscore and advocate for the needs of populations and groups they serve.

How to identify predatory journals in a search: Precautions for nurses.

ABSTRACT: Nursing journals offer important content on new practices and approaches to care. Unfortunately, predatory journals that use unsavory publication practices have emerged. This article shares guidance to help nurses effectively appraise information and their sources, distinguish predatory from legitimate journals, and conduct due diligence.

Publishing in Predatory Journals: Guidelines for Nursing Faculty in Promotion and Tenure Policies.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which academic promotion and tenure (APT) criteria and guidelines in schools of nursing recognize predatory publishing. This assessment included an analysis of APT documents looking specifically for guidance about predatory publications by faculty in schools of nursing. DESIGN: This study used a cross-sectional, descriptive design and was conducted in 2020. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used to collect data from two sources. Data were extracted from APT documents for 92 research-intensive universities found online and specifically focused on documents for universities and for schools of nursing in the United States. Interviews were conducted with a subsample of academic administrators (n = 10) from selected schools. FINDINGS: The majority (57%; n = 50) of APT documents reviewed addressed quality of the journals in which faculty publish. However, very nonspecific terms, such as "high quality" or "peer reviewed" were used. None of the documents reviewed (n = 88) included any reference to predatory journals. Deans who were interviewed validated the analysis of the APT documents. While most deans reported faculty were aware of predatory journals and the risks of publishing in them, formal guidelines for consequences for publishing in predatory journals were not developed or available. CONCLUSION: This study examined how schools of nursing in research-intensive universities address the issue of predatory journals. APT criteria do not provide guidance to faculty and promotion and tenure committees about issues related to predatory publications as low-quality publication outlets. Recommendations for APT committees, mentors, and faculty are provided. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians rely on researchers, many of whom are faculty, to publish rigorous studies that produce evidence they can translate into practice. One measure of the quality of a study's findings is where the paper is published and reflects the level of peer review it has been through. Faculty who publish in predatory journals may not have had their work reviewed by experts; evidence produced may or may not be adequate for translation to guide nursing practice.

Analysis of Citation Patterns and Impact of Predatory Sources in the Nursing Literature.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to learn how predatory journal articles were cited in articles published in legitimate (nonpredatory) nursing journals. The extent of citation and citation patterns were studied. DESIGN: A two-phase approach was used. METHODS: In Phase 1, 204 articles published in legitimate nursing journals that cited a predatory publication were randomly selected for analysis from a list of 814 articles with predatory journal citations. In Phase 2, the four predatory journal articles that were cited most frequently were analyzed further to examine their citation patterns. FINDINGS: The majority (n = 148, 72.55%) of the articles that cited a predatory publication were research reports. Most commonly, the predatory article was only cited once (n = 117, 61.58%). Most (n = 158, 82.72%) of the predatory articles, though, were used substantively, that is, to provide a basis for the study or methods, describe the results, or explain the findings. The four articles in Phase 2 generated 38 citations in legitimate journals, published from 2011 to 2019, demonstrating persistence in citation. An evaluation of the quality of these articles was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide an understanding of the use and patterns of citations to predatory articles in legitimate nursing journals. Authors who choose predatory journals as the channel to disseminate their publications devalue the work that publishers, editors, and peer reviewers play in scholarly dissemination. Likewise, those who cite these works are also contributing to the problem of predatory publishing in nursing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nurse authors should not publish their work in predatory journals and should avoid citing articles from these journals, which disseminates the content through the scholarly nursing literature.

A bibliometric analysis of articles identified by editors as representing excellence in nursing publication: Replication and extension.

AIMS: To analyse subsequent citations of 91 articles identified by editors as reflecting excellence in nursing literature and in a companion dataset of 82 other articles from the same journals; and to compare the concepts of reach, persistence, and dissemination in these two datasets. DESIGN: A quantitative bibliometric analysis and qualitative thematic analysis were done between February-June 2019. DATA SOURCES: In all, 91 articles nominated by editors comprised the first dataset. A companion dataset was created by selecting articles (N = 82) from the same journals. REVIEW METHODS: Articles were assessed for type, focus, discipline, total number of authors, and geographical location of the first author. Scopus was searched to obtain bibliographic information and subsequent second- and third-generation citations for all indexed articles. RESULTS: For the articles selected by the editors, 76 were indexed and 43 (56.5%) were cited at least once, resulting in 333 citations in the second and third generations. For the companion articles, 38 (of 78) were cited, with 175 subsequent citations. These findings are congruent with the prior study. CONCLUSION: Articles in nursing journals are being read and cited. The concepts of persistence, reach, and dissemination are supported and their use in bibliometric analysis is warranted. IMPACT: This novel research highlights the global and interdisciplinary impact of a unique set of articles representing nursing and nursing specialty areas. All the articles in the virtual journal and companion dataset were from nursing journals, but dissemination was to other disciplines, primarily medicine. Findings from this replication study continue the effort to document the rigour of content in the nursing literature; support its use to inform policy and practice at all levels; and offer evidence of excellence in content to inform nursing curricula.

Plagiarism in Predatory Publications: A Comparative Study of Three Nursing Journals.

PURPOSE: This study compared three known predatory nursing journals to determine the percentage of content among them that was plagiarized or duplicated. A serendipitous finding of several instances of plagiarism via duplicate publications during the random analysis of articles in a study examining the quality of articles published in predatory journals prompted this investigation. DESIGN: The study utilized a descriptive, comparative design. All articles in each journal (n = 296 articles) from inception (volume 1, number 1) through May 1, 2017, were analyzed. METHODS: Each article was evaluated and scored electronically for similarity using an electronic plagiarism detection tool. Articles were then individually reviewed, and exact and near exact matches (90% or greater plagiarized content) were paired. Articles with less than 70% plagiarized scores were randomly sampled, and an in-depth search for matches of partial content in other journals was conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. FINDINGS: The extent and direction of duplication from one given journal to another was established. Changes made in subsequent publications, as a potential distraction to identify plagiarism, were also identified. There were 100 (68%) exact and near exact matches in the paired articles. The time lapse between the original and duplicate publication ranged from 0 to 63 months, with a mean of 27.2 months (SD =19.68). Authors were from 26 countries, including Africa, the United States, Turkey, and Iran. Articles with similarity scores in the range of 20% to 70% included possible similarities in content or research plagiarism, but not to the extent of the exact or near exact matches. The majority of the articles (n = 94) went from Journal A or C to Journal B, although four articles were first published in Journal B and then Journal A. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a substantial level of plagiarism via duplicate publications in the three analyzed predatory journals, further diluting credible scientific literature and risking the ability to synthesize evidence accurately to inform practice. Editors should continue to use electronic plagiarism detection tools. Education about publishing misconduct for editors and authors is a high priority. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both contributors and consumers of nursing literature rely on integrity in publication. Authors expect appropriate credit for their scholarly contributions without unethical and unauthorized duplication of their work. Readers expect current information from original authors, upon which they can make informed practice decisions.

An analysis of nursing citations and disciplinary characteristics in 79 articles that represent excellence in nursing publication.

Development of the knowledge base for a profession depends on research and scholarship that builds on the insights and work of scholars within the discipline and is disseminated through the literature. The purpose of this study was to examine a unique collection of 79 articles selected by editors as representative of their nursing journals. Articles were assessed for congruence with long-standing values and conceptual definitions of nursing, and the extent to which they built on prior literature published in nursing. Articles were scored based on whether they reflected four characteristics of nursing as a discipline (holism, social context, goal of health, and consistency with common definitions of nursing); an abstract score on the extent to which the title, abstract, or keywords indicated a general focus on nursing; and a distinction score based on whether the article distinguished nurses or nursing from other providers. Fifty of the articles received an article score of 4, indicating all four disciplinary characteristics were present in the article's content. While the majority of the articles were congruent with fundamental nursing values and perspectives, only 28% of the sources cited were from nursing sources. The lack of citations to nursing literature, coupled with an assessment that reveals gaps in substantive content that builds on nursing knowledge, raises questions about the future of nursing perspectives in the literature.

Citations of articles in predatory nursing journals.

BACKGROUND: Nursing journals from predatory publication outlets may look authentic and seem to be a credible source of information. However, further inspection may reveal otherwise. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze publication and dissemination patterns of articles published in known predatory nursing journals. METHOD: Using Scopus, reference lists were searched for citations from seven identified predatory nursing journals. Bibliographic information and subsequent citation information were then collected and analyzed. FINDINGS: A total of 814 citations of articles published in predatory nursing journals were identified. Further analysis indicated that these articles were cited in 141 nonpredatory nursing journals of various types. DISCUSSION: Predatory nursing journals continue to persist, yet fewer may now be in existence. Education and information may help authors and reviewers identify predatory journals, thereby discouraging submissions to these publications and hesitancy among authors to cite articles published in them.

The Impact of the Photocopier on Peer Review and Nursing Theory.

OVERVIEW: Two influential publications in nursing, Nursing Research and Perspectives on Nursing Theory, are used to illustrate how a specific technology change-the invention and marketing of the photocopier-influenced knowledge dissemination and information utilization in nursing, perhaps in ways not immediately apparent. METHODS: Content analysis and historical comparison, using editorials from Nursing Research, historical reports on technology development, and personal reflections on the genesis of Perspectives on Nursing Theory are used to create an argument for the role of technology in peer review, information utilization, and knowledge development in nursing. CONCLUSION: Multiple forces influence nursing science. Scholars should be alert to data inputs from many sources and respond accordingly.

Quality of Author Guidelines in Nursing Journals.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to (a) describe the information provided in author guidelines in nursing journals, (b) assess the completeness of this information, and (c) identify the extent and types of reporting guidelines used in nursing journals. DESIGN: Content analysis of author guidelines for 245 nursing journals included in the Directory of Nursing Journals maintained at the International Academy of Nursing Editors website. METHODS: Using Research Electronic Data Capture, data on 19 criteria for completeness were extracted from published author guidelines. Additional details about journal requirements, such as allowed length of manuscripts and format for the abstract, were also recorded. Reliability was established by simultaneous review of 25 journals (10%) by the research assistant and a senior member of the research team. FINDINGS: Author guidelines were easily accessible at journal websites or through links to download the information. A majority (73.5%) had completeness scores of 75% or higher; six journals had guidelines that were 100% complete. Half of the journals used the American Psychological Association reference style, and 26.3% used the American Medical Association style. Less than one fourth had stated requirements to use reporting guidelines such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). CONCLUSIONS: Author guidelines for nursing journals are generally complete and informative. Although specific reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and PRISMA improve the accuracy and completeness of manuscripts on various types of studies, most nursing journals do not indicate use of these for manuscript preparation. Editors who want to improve their author guidelines should use the 19 criteria for completeness as a gauge for updating and revision. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nurses rely on the published literature to inform their practice and ensure that it is based on evidence. Guidelines for publishing in the scholarly literature assist clinicians and scholars to ensure that published articles are complete, current, concise, and accurate.

A bibliometric analysis of 81 articles that represent excellence in nursing publication.

AIM: To analyze publication patterns of 81 articles included in a "virtual journal." BACKGROUND: From May-July 2017, editors submitted articles from their journals representing distinction in nursing research, education, or practice. Brief responses explained their rationale for article selection. This sample embodied a unique exemplar of excellence in nursing publication and warranted further bibliometric analysis, which was undertaken from February to May 2018. DESIGN/METHOD: Using Scopus, each article (N = 81) was searched to obtain bibliographic information and subsequent second and third generation citations. Three concepts guided the analysis: (a) persistence, rate of subsequent citations over time; (b) reach, geographic distribution of subsequent citations; and (c) dissemination, specialty of follow-on citations represented as nursing or another discipline. Patterns amongst the second and third generation of citations were also examined. RESULTS: Of the 81 articles, 43 (53%) were cited at least once, resulting in 721 second generation citations. There was long-term persistence (N = 2094) over the third and fourth generation citations. There was a wide geographic reach, representing 41 states in the United States and 44 countries. Dissemination was broad with citations in the medical literature eclipsing nursing in the third generation. The highest cited articles were all research reports. Patterns of silos and ripple effect were identified. No pattern could be identified for the 31 articles with zero subsequent citations. CONCLUSION: This study revealed the impact of articles perceived as exemplar representations of 80 different nursing journals. Nursing research is being widely read and cited, both in and outside the profession.

Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals.

BACKGROUND: Predatory journals exist in nursing and lack the safeguards of traditional publishing practices. PURPOSE: To examine the quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. METHOD: Randomly selected articles (n = 358) were reviewed for structural content and eight quality indicators. FINDINGS: Two-thirds (67.4%) of the articles were published between 2014 and 2016, demonstrating the acceleration of publications in predatory nursing journals. The majority (75.9%) of the articles were research reports. Most followed the IMRAD presentation of a research report but contained errors, or the study was not pertinent to the nursing discipline. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing research published in predatory journals may appear legitimate by conforming to an expected structure. However, a lack of quality is apparent, representing inadequate peer review and editorial processes. Poor quality research erodes the scholarly nursing literature.

Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify predatory journals in nursing, describe their characteristics and editorial standards, and document experiences of authors, peer reviewers, and editors affiliated with these journals. DESIGN: Using two sources that list predatory journals, the research team created a list of nursing journals. In Phase One, the team collected data on characteristics of predatory nursing journals such as types of articles published, article processing charge, and peer review process. In Phase Two, the team surveyed a sample of authors, reviewers, and editors to learn more about their experiences with their affiliated journals. METHODS: Data from the review of predatory nursing journals were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Written comments were summarized and categorized. FINDINGS: There were 140 predatory nursing journals from 75 publishers. Most journals were new, having been inaugurated in the past 1 to 2 years. One important finding was that many journals only published one or two volumes and then either ceased publishing or published fewer issues and articles after the first volume. Journal content varied widely, and some journals published content from dentistry and medicine, as well as nursing. Qualitative findings from the surveys confirmed previously published anecdotal evidence, including authors selecting journals based on spam emails and inability to halt publication of a manuscript, despite authors' requests to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Predatory journals exist in nursing and bring with them many of the "red flags" that have been noted in the literature, including lack of transparency about editorial processes and misleading information promoted on websites. The number of journals is high enough to warrant concern in the discipline about erosion of our scholarly literature. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nurses rely on the published literature to provide evidence for high-quality, safe care that promotes optimal patient outcomes. Research published in journals that do not adhere to the highest standards of publishing excellence have the potential to compromise nursing scholarship and is an area of concern.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Review Types Published in the Nursing Scientific Literature.

Reviews in the nursing scientific literature have steadily expanded in scope and range. This has resulted in a variety of terms used to describe these reports found in bibliographic databases, creating confusion. This study investigated the status of reviews in the published nursing literature, including: (1) number of reviews; (2) conventions related to naming and description; (3) publication location; and (4) areas of clarity and inconsistency. Eighty-five percent of reviews (n = 5893) included in this study adhered to an identified review strategy, complete with a clear approach. The remainder (n = 981, 15%) did not. Authors of reviews must follow the identified protocol for their review type and share all relevant information including standards and rigor. Editors and peer reviewers need to possess up-to-date knowledge on methodologies associated with specific review types.

Research on Predatory Publishing in Health Care: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Predatory publishers and their associated journals have been identified as a threat to the integrity of the scientific literature. Research on the phenomenon of predatory publishing in health care remains unquantified. PURPOSE: To identify the characteristics of empirical studies on predatory publishing in the health care literature. METHODS: A scoping review was done using PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. A total of 4967 articles were initially screened; 77 articles reporting empirical findings were ultimately reviewed. RESULTS: The 77 articles were predominantly bibliometric analyses/document analyses (n = 56). The majority were in medicine (n = 31, 40%) or were multidisciplinary (n = 26, 34%); 11 studies were in nursing. Most studies reported that articles published in predatory journals were of lower quality than those published in more reputable journals. In nursing, the research confirmed that articles in predatory journals were being cited in legitimate nursing journals, thereby spreading information that may not be credible through the literature. CONCLUSION: The purposes of the evaluated studies were similar: to understand the characteristics and extent of the problem of predatory publishing. Although literature about predatory publishing is abundant, empirical studies in health care are limited. The findings suggest that individual vigilance alone will not be enough to address this problem in the scholarly literature. Institutional policy and technical protections are also necessary to mitigate erosion of the scientific literature in health care.