An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature

Author:

Nicoll Leslie H.1ORCID,Carter‐Templeton Heather2ORCID,Oermann Marilyn H.3ORCID,Bailey Hannah E.4ORCID,Owens Jacqueline K.5ORCID,Wrigley Jordan6ORCID,Ledbetter Leila S.7ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Maine Desk LLC Portland Maine USA

2. West Virginia University Morgantown West Virginia USA

3. Duke University School of Nursing Durham North Carolina USA

4. John Chambers College of Business and Economics West Virginia University Morgantown West Virginia USA

5. Dwight Schar College of Nursing and Health Sciences Ashland University Ashland Ohio USA

6. Future of Privacy Forum Washington District of Columbia USA

7. Research and Education Librarian Duke University Medical Center Library Durham North Carolina USA

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThe 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.DesignThis was an exploratory study.MethodsA 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.ResultsBetween 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.ConclusionNurses 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.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

General Nursing

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3