Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature.
Nicoll, Leslie H; Carter-Templeton, Heather; Oermann, Marilyn H; Bailey, Hannah E; Owens, Jacqueline K; Wrigley, Jordan; Ledbetter, Leila S.
Affiliation
  • Nicoll LH; Maine Desk LLC, Portland, Maine, USA.
  • Carter-Templeton H; West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.
  • Oermann MH; Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
  • Bailey HE; John Chambers College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.
  • Owens JK; Dwight Schar College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio, USA.
  • Wrigley J; Future of Privacy Forum, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
  • Ledbetter LS; Research and Education Librarian, Duke University Medical Center Library, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
J Nurs Scholarsh ; 56(3): 478-485, 2024 05.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38124265
ABSTRACT

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.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Retraction of Publication as Topic / Nursing Research Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Nurs Scholarsh Journal subject: ENFERMAGEM Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country:

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Retraction of Publication as Topic / Nursing Research Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Nurs Scholarsh Journal subject: ENFERMAGEM Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: