Volume 29, Issue 4 (Iran South Med J 2026)
Iran South Med J 2026, 29(4): 220-232 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shahneh M, Nicknam M, Afrashteh S, Hamidi A. Exploring the Causes of Retraction in Nurs-ing
Papers: A Study Based on Retraction Watch Data. Iran South Med J 2026; 29 (4) :220-232
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-2644-en.html
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-2644-en.html
1- Student Research Committee, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
2- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of health, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
3- Department of Medical Library & Information Sciences, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran ,a.hamidi@bpums.ac.ir
2- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of health, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
3- Department of Medical Library & Information Sciences, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran ,
Abstract: (342 Views)
Abstract
Background: Maintaining the credibility and authenticity of nursing research is essential, as it directly impacts the quality of patient care. Given the increasing number of retracted articles in this field, the present study aimed to analyze the primary causes of retractions in nursing literature.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive-analytical survey evaluated 202 retracted nursing articles retrieved from the Retraction Watch database on January 5, 2025. Data were collected using a researcher‑made checklist and analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test and the Spearman’s rank correlation test in SPSS version 27.
Results: The median time from publication to retraction was approximately 13.93 months, with a median of three authors per article. The highest proportion of articles was published in 2022 (52.97%), while the highest rate of retraction occurred in 2023 (approximately 59.40%). Research originating from China (about 70%) and articles published by Hindawi (62.87%) accounted for the majority of retractions. Furthermore, 69.8% of the articles were published in unranked journals. The most common reasons for retraction were inadequate or flawed peer review, plagiarism, policy violations, data fabrication, and invalid results.
Conclusion: The high concentration of retractions in unranked journals and the prominent role of inadequate peer review indicate the need to revise peer review processes. Strengthening evaluation mechanisms and training researchers can help reduce misconduct and improve the quality of nursing articles.
Background: Maintaining the credibility and authenticity of nursing research is essential, as it directly impacts the quality of patient care. Given the increasing number of retracted articles in this field, the present study aimed to analyze the primary causes of retractions in nursing literature.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive-analytical survey evaluated 202 retracted nursing articles retrieved from the Retraction Watch database on January 5, 2025. Data were collected using a researcher‑made checklist and analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test and the Spearman’s rank correlation test in SPSS version 27.
Results: The median time from publication to retraction was approximately 13.93 months, with a median of three authors per article. The highest proportion of articles was published in 2022 (52.97%), while the highest rate of retraction occurred in 2023 (approximately 59.40%). Research originating from China (about 70%) and articles published by Hindawi (62.87%) accounted for the majority of retractions. Furthermore, 69.8% of the articles were published in unranked journals. The most common reasons for retraction were inadequate or flawed peer review, plagiarism, policy violations, data fabrication, and invalid results.
Conclusion: The high concentration of retractions in unranked journals and the prominent role of inadequate peer review indicate the need to revise peer review processes. Strengthening evaluation mechanisms and training researchers can help reduce misconduct and improve the quality of nursing articles.
Original: Original |
Subject:
Nursing
Received: 2026/06/2 | Accepted: 2026/08/3 | Published: 2026/09/26
Received: 2026/06/2 | Accepted: 2026/08/3 | Published: 2026/09/26
References
1. Joaquim S, Longhini J, Palese A. What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review. Acta Biomed 2022; 93(2): e2022193. [DOI]
2. Contreras-Muñoz MP, Zahn-Muñoz C, Solís-Albanese, et al. Analysis of Retractions in Nursing from Publications Between 2000 and 2024: A Bibli-ometric Analysis Using Retraction Watch. Nurs Rep 2025; 15(10): 349. [DOI]
3. Mousa A, Flanagan M, Tay CT, et al. Research Integrity in Guidelines and evIDence synthesis (RIG-ID): a framework for assessing research integrity in guideline development and evidence synthesis. EClinicalMedicine 2024; 74: 102717. [DOI]
4. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one 2009; 4(5): e5738. [DOI]
5. De Cassai A, Geraldini F, De Pinto S, et al. Inappropriate citation of retracted articles in anesthesiology and intensive care medicine publications. Anesthesiology 2022; 137(3): 341–350. [DOI]
6. Dakhesh S, Khademizadeh S, Farajpahlou A, et al. Measuring the level of compliance with the publication ethics standards: Analysis of retracted publica-tions of Iranian researchers affiliated with the MSRT. Ethics Sc Technol 2024; 19(1): 72–81. (Persian) [DOI]
7. Mohamadloo A, Batooli Z. A scientometric and con-tent analysis of research output on" Retracted Papers" indexed in Scopus. Feyz Med Sci J 2020; 24(4): 446–461. (Persian) [Article]
8. Morovati M, Erfanmanesh MA. Retraction of Schol-arly Outputs and Instances of Research Misbehav-ior. J Ethics Sci Technol 2021; 15(4): 62–69. (Persian) [DOI]
9. Hami A, Jahani Y, Sadatmoosavi A. Analysis of the researchers’ citation of retracted articles in the field of orthopedics. Iran South Med J 2024; 26(4): 260–272. (Persian) [DOI]
10. Allahverdi N, Parizad N, Shahbaz A. Nursing research in Iran and the world from the perspective of nursing professors: A qualitative study. Iran J of Nurs Res 2020; 15(1): 9-18. (Persian) [Article]
11. Poroushasb S. Pathology and study of the Iranian retracted papers in Scopus, Google Scholar, and Research gate Databases Between 1997-2017. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management 2018; 4(2): 137–156. (Persian) [DOI]
12. Xu C, Fan S, Tian Y, et al. Investigating the impact of trial retractions on the healthcare evidence eco-system (VITALITY Study I): retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2025; 389: e082068. [DOI]
13. Yessirkepov M, Togaibekova Z, Kocyigit BF, et al. Amount, cause, and citation frequency of retracted nursing publications from 1997 to 2024 in PubMed: a bibliometric study. Science Editing 2025; 12(2): 109–113. [DOI]
14. Hamdipour A, Atapour H, Mirpanahi S. An Analysis of the Retraction Trend of Scientific Documents Indexed on the Web of Science during the Years 2000-2020. Caspian Journal of Scientometrics 2022; 9(1): 82-97. (Persian) [DOI]
15. Zardari S, Khanzadeh F. A study of the scientometric characteristics and publication trends of discredited papers in the field of psychology in the Web of Science citation database. Journal of Modern Psychological Research 2025; 19(76): 108–126. (Persian) [DOI]
16. Campos-Varela I, Villaverde-Castañeda R, Ruano-Raviña A. Retraction of publications: a study of biomedical journals retracting publications based on impact factor and journal category. Gac Sanit 2021; 34: 430–434. [DOI]
17. Yang W, Sun N, Song H. Analysis of the retraction papers in oncology field from Chinese scholars from 2013 to 2022. J Cancer R Ther 2024; 20(2): 592–598. [DOI]
18. Khurana P, Sharma K, Uddin Z. Unraveling retraction dynamics in COVID-19 research: Patterns, rea-sons, and implications. Account Res 2025; 32(7): 1241–1264. [DOI]
19. Dal-Ré R, Ayuso C. Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018. J Med Genet 2019; 56(11): 734–740. [DOI]
20. Maddi A, Monneau E, Guaspare-Cartron C, et al. The retraction gender gap: are mixed teams more vulnerable?. Quantitative Science Studies 2025 ; 6(2): 351-374. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
