What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review
Article retractions in nursing
Keywords:
nursing; retraction; misconduct; research; ethics.Abstract
Background and aim of the work: Literature reviews have summarised the number of retracted studies and guidelines have been developed to prevent this issue. However, available data are scarce in the nursing field. Learning from other experiences may be able to increase awareness of the issue and prevent avoidable errors. Therefore, the intent of this study was to map retracted articles in the nursing field by investigating the reasons for retractions in order to elicit strategies to prevent their occurrence.
Methods: A scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) for articles published from 2001 to 2021. Quantitative primary and secondary studies related to the nursing field and written in English, with a “retracted article” message and/or presenting a retraction notice, have been included. The main reasons for retraction have been recorded, as well as the main features of the studies retracted.
Results: Out of 274 studies, we detected 26 retractions, of which eight were literature reviews and seven were experimental studies. Editors were the most frequent party requiring retraction. The retracted studies originated from 11 countries and were mostly published (n = 19) in general nursing journals. Scientific misconduct was the main cause of retraction (n = 18), while the remaining retractions were due to other types of errors.
Conclusions: Most of the study retractions were issued by editors and originated mostly from high-scientific output countries. Scientific misconduct represented the principal cause of retraction; from these failures, educational strategies have been identified in order to prevent issues and to increase awareness among researchers and healthcare professionals.
References
Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK. Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open. 2016 Nov;6(11):e012047.
Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. J Med Ethics. 2011 Sep;37(9):567–70.
Bordino M, Ravizzotti E, Vercelli S. Retracted articles in rehabilitation: just the tip of the iceberg? A bibliometric analysis. Arch Physiother. 2020 Nov;10(1):21.
Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 1998 Jul;280(3):296–7.
Committee on Publication ethics. CoPe retraction guidelines [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
Stavale R, Ferreira GI, Galvão JAM, Zicker F, Novaes MRCG, Oliveira CM de, et al. Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0214272.
Dyer C. Lancet retracts Wakefield’s MMR paper. Vol. 340, BMJ (Clinical research ed.). England; 2010. p. c696.
Lievore C, Rubbo P, Dos Santos CB, Picinin CT, Pilatti LA. Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities. Scientometrics. 2021 May;1–19.
Kardeş S, Levack W, Özkuk K, Atmaca Aydın E, Seringeç Karabulut S. Retractions in Rehabilitation and Sport Sciences Journals: A Systematic Review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Nov;101(11):1980–90.
Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct;109(42):17028–33.
Al-Ghareeb A, Hillel S, McKenna L, Cleary M, Visentin D, Jones M, et al. Retraction of publications in nursing and midwifery research: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018 May;81:8–13.
Olesen AP, Amin L, Mahadi Z. In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Dec;24(6):1755–76.
Khanyile TD, Duma S, Fakude LP, Mbombo N, Daniels F, Sabone MS. Research integrity and misconduct: a clarification of the concepts. Curationis. 2006 Mar;29(1):40–5.
Cyranoski D. Collateral damage: How a case of misconduct brought a leading Japanese biology institute to its knees. Vol. 520, Nature. England; 2015. p. 600–3.
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol - INT J SOC RES METHODOL. 2005 Feb 1;8:19–32.
Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010 Sep;5:69.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct;169(7):467–73.
Li G, Kamel M, Jin Y, Xu MK, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, et al. Exploring the characteristics, global distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants: a literature survey. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2018;11:39–47.
National Academy of Sciences. National Academy of Engineerin. Institute of Medicine. Responsible science: ensuring the integrity of the research process. 1992.
Farthing MJG. Coping with fraud. Lancet [Internet]. 1998 Dec 1;352:S11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)90273-2
Satalkar P, Shaw D. How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland. BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Oct;20(1):72.
Palese A, Mansutti I, Visintini E, Caruzzo D, Moreale R, Longhini J, et al. Framing the time while designing and conducting reviews: A Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis. J Clin Nurs [Internet]. 2021; Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85121503835&doi=10.1111%2Fjocn.16180&partnerID=40&md5=496a03518ca4d30a5bab14cb6cf9a826
Cura Della Redazione A. [To look forward, after the pandemic]. Vol. 40, Assistenza infermieristica e ricerca : AIR. Italy; 2021. p. 122–3.
Frankel MS. Professional societies and responsible research conduct. Responsible Sci Ensuring Integr Res Process. 1993;2:33–4.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Best Practices For Preventing Research Misconduct [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://research.mit.edu/integrity-and-compliance/research-misconduct/best-practices-preventing-research-misconduct#footnotes
Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact. Croat Med J [Internet]. 2014 Feb;55(1):61–72. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24577829
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Silvania Joaquim, Jessica Longhini, Alvisa Palese
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Transfer of Copyright and Permission to Reproduce Parts of Published Papers.
Authors retain the copyright for their published work. No formal permission will be required to reproduce parts (tables or illustrations) of published papers, provided the source is quoted appropriately and reproduction has no commercial intent. Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.
How to Cite
