Search

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., (© 2023 Sigma Theta Tau International.)

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., (© 2021 Sigma Theta Tau International.)

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., (© 2020 Sigma Theta Tau International.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe the current evidence found in the nursing literature about robotics used to assist or augment nursing care., Methods: A bibliometric analysis of published research focused on robotics in nursing care was conducted to analyze the trends of publications. A search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature database was conducted. This analysis was used to determine the types and extent of robotic research presented in nursing and allied health literature, journals that publish robotic research, and the origins of the study., Findings: Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria and spanned the years 2004 to 2016. The main disciplines represented by first authors in these 21 articles were medicine (n = 4, 9%), nursing (n = 4, 9%), and psychiatric medicine (n = 4, 9%). Nine countries were represented by the first author. The majority of the specific studies reported using qualitative research methods (n = 4, 19%) with reports of other research designs being used. Further analysis of subsequent citations found that 248 subsequent citations were generated from these articles., Conclusions: The application of robots has been used beyond typical physical day-to-day processes as many definitions of robotics suggest. Eleven (52%) of the 21 articles described the use of robots with aged patients. In some cases, robots were used as companions for older adults, as opposed to replacing mechanical and repetitive motions., Clinical Relevance: Robotics are being used globally in nursing care areas. While a limited amount of research on this topic in nursing exists, this study of the literature offers reports of applications of robots within nursing care areas., (© 2018 Sigma Theta Tau International.)