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: (22 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
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
