An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature

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.

Correcting duplicate publications: follow up study of MEDLINE tagged duplications

Introduction

As MEDLINE indexers tag similar articles as duplicates even when journals have not addressed the duplication(s), we sought to determine the reasons behind the tagged duplications, and if the journals had undertaken or had planned to undertake any actions to address them.

Materials and methods

On 16 January 2013, we extracted all tagged duplicate publications (DPs), analysed published notices, and then contacted MEDLINE and editors regarding cases unaddressed by notices. For non-respondents, we compared full text of the articles. We followed up the study for the next 5 years to see if any changes occurred.

Results

We found 1011 indexed DPs, which represented 555 possible DP cases (in MEDLINE, both the original and the duplicate are assigned a DP tag). Six cases were excluded as we could not obtain their full text. Additional 190 (35%) cases were incorrectly tagged as DPs. Of 359 actual cases of DPs, 200 (54%) were due to publishers’ actions (e.g. identical publications in the same journal), and 159 (46%) due to authors’ actions (e.g. article submission to more than one journal). Of the 359 cases, 185 (52%) were addressed by notices, but only 25 (7%) retracted. Following our notifications, MEDLINE corrected 138 (73%) incorrectly tagged cases, and editors retracted 8 articles.

Conclusions

Despite clear policies on how to handle DPs, just half (54%) of the DPs in MEDLINE were addressed by journals and only 9% retracted. Publishers, editors, and indexers need to develop and implement standards for better correction of duplicate published records.

Retractions in general and internal medicine in a high-profile scientific indexing database

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Increased frequency of retractions has recently been observed, and retractions are important events that deserve scientific investigation. This study aimed to characterize cases of retraction within general and internal medicine in a high-profile database, with interest in the country of origin of the article and the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which the retraction was made.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This study consisted of reviewing retraction notes in the Thomson-Reuters Web of Knowledge (WoK) indexing database, within general and internal medicine.

METHODS

The retractions were classified as plagiarism/duplication, error, fraud and authorship problems and then aggregated into two categories: "plagiarism/duplication" and "others." The countries of origin of the articles were dichotomized according to the median of the indicator "citations per paper" (CPP), and the IF was dichotomized according to its median within general and internal medicine, also obtained from the WoK database. These variables were analyzed using contingency tables according to CPP (high versus low), IF (high versus low) and period (1992-2002 versus 2003-2014). The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated for plagiarism/duplication.

RESULTS

A total of 86 retraction notes were identified, and retraction reasons were found for 80 of them. The probability that plagiarism/duplication was the reason for retraction was more than three times higher for the low CPP group (RR: 3.4; 95% CI: [1.9-6.2]), and similar results were seen for the IF analysis.

CONCLUSION

The study identified greater incidence of plagiarism/duplication among retractions from countries with lower scientific impact.

Difficulty in detecting discrepancies in a clinical trial report: 260-reader evaluation

Background: Scientific literature can contain errors. Discrepancies, defined as two or more statements or results that cannot both be true, may be a signal of problems with a trial report. In this study, we report how many discrepancies are detected by a large panel of readers examining a trial report containing a large number of discrepancies.

Methods: We approached a convenience sample of 343 journal readers in seven countries, and invited them in person to participate in a study. They were asked to examine the tables and figures of one published article for discrepancies. 260 participants agreed, ranging from medical students to professors. The discrepancies they identified were tabulated and counted. There were 39 different discrepancies identified. We evaluated the probability of discrepancy identification, and whether more time spent or greater participant experience as academic authors improved the ability to detect discrepancies.

Results: Overall, 95.3% of discrepancies were missed. Most participants (62%) were unable to find any discrepancies. Only 11.5% noticed more than 10% of the discrepancies. More discrepancies were noted by participants who spent more time on the task (Spearman’s ρ = 0.22, P < 0.01), and those with more experience of publishing papers (Spearman’s ρ = 0.13 with number of publications, P = 0.04).

Conclusions: Noticing discrepancies is difficult. Most readers miss most discrepancies even when asked specifically to look for them. The probability of a discrepancy evading an individual sensitized reader is 95%, making it important that, when problems are identified after publication, readers are able to communicate with each other. When made aware of discrepancies, the majority of readers support editorial action to correct the scientific record.

Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct

The purpose of this study was to identify and describe published research articles that were named in official findings of scientific misconduct and to investigate compliance with the administrative actions contained in these reports for corrections and retractions, as represented in PubMed. Between 1993 and 2001, 102 articles were named in either the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts ("Findings of Scientific Misconduct") or the U.S. Office of Research Integrity annual reports as needing retraction or correction. In 2002, 98 of the 102 articles were indexed in PubMed. Eighty-five of these 98 articles had indexed corrections: 47 were retracted; 26 had an erratum; 12 had a correction described in the "comment" field. Thirteen had no correction, but 10 were linked to the NIH Guide "Findings of Scientific Misconduct", leaving only 3 articles with no indication of any sort of problem. As of May 2005, there were 5,393 citations to the 102 articles, with a median of 26 citations per article (range 0-592). Researchers should be alert to "Comments" linked to the NIH Guide as these are open access, and the "Findings of Scientific Misconduct' reports are often more informative than the statements about the retraction or correction found in the journals.

A case study of a retracted systematic review on interactive health communication applications: impact on media, scientists, and patients

BACKGROUND

In October 2004, a flawed systematic review entitled "Interactive Health Communication Applications for People with Chronic Disease" was published in the Cochrane Library, accompanied by several press releases in which authors warned the public of the negative health consequences of interactive health communication applications, including the Internet. Within days of the review's publication, scientists identified major coding errors and other methodological problems that invalidated the principal conclusions of the study and led to a retraction. While the original study results and their negative conclusions were widely publicized in the media, the retraction seemed to go unnoticed.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to document an unprecedented case of misinformation from a Cochrane review and its impact on media, scientists, and patients. As well, it aims to identify the generic factors leading to the incident and suggest remedies.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study of the events leading to the retraction of the publication and of the reactions from media, scientists, and patients. This includes a review and content analysis of academic and mass media articles responding to the publication and retraction. Mass media articles were retrieved in May 2005 from LexisNexis Academic and Google and were classified and tallied. The extended case method is employed, and the analysis is also applied to comparable publishing events.

RESULTS

A search on LexisNexis Academic database with the query "Elizabeth Murray AND health" for the period of June 2004 to May 2005 revealed a total of 15 press reports, of which only 1 addressed the retraction. Google was searched for references to the review, and the first 200 retrieved hits were analyzed. Of these, 170 pages were not related to the review. Of the remaining 30 pages, 23 (77%) were reports about the original publication that did not mention the retraction, 1 (3%) was a bibliography not mentioning the retraction, and 6 (20%) addressed the retraction, of which only 1 was a non-Cochrane-related source.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyzed retrievals showed that the mass media gave more coverage to the Cochrane review than to the retraction or to a related systematic review with a similar scope but a different conclusion. Questionable results were prematurely disseminated, oversimplified, and sensationalized, while the retraction was hardly noticed by the public. Open commentary by scientists and patients helped to rapidly identify the errors but did not prevent or correct the dissemination of misinformation.

Report of a case of cyberplagiarism--and reflections on detecting and preventing academic misconduct using the Internet

BACKGROUND

The Internet is an invaluable tool for researchers and certainly also a source of inspiration. However, never before has it been so easy to plagiarise the work of others by clipping together (copy & paste) an apparently original paper or review paper from paragraphs on several websites. Moreover, the threshold of stealing ideas, whether lifting paragraphs or perhaps even whole articles from the Internet, seems to be much lower than copying sections from books or articles. In this article, we shall use the term cyberplagarism to describe the case where someone, intentionally or inadvertently, is taking information, phrases, or thoughts from the World Wide Web (WWW) and using it in a scholarly article without attributing the origin.

OBJECTIVES

To illustrate a case of cyberplagiarism and to discuss potential Methods using the Internet to detect scientific misconduct. This report was also written to stimulate debate and thought among journal editors about the use of state of the art technology to fight cyberplagiarism.

METHODS

A case of a recent incident of cyberplagiarism, which occurred in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (JRCSEd), is reported. A systematic search of the Internet for informatics tools that help to identify plagiarism and duplicate publication was conducted.

RESULTS

This is the first in-depth report of an incident where significant portions of a web article were lifted into a scholarly article without attribution. In detecting and demonstrating this incident, a tool at www.plagiarism.org, has proven to be particularly useful. The plagiarism report generated by this tool stated that more than one third (36%) of the JRCSEd article consisted of phrases that were directly copied from multiple websites, without giving attribution to this fact.

CONCLUSIONS

Cyberplagiarism may be a widespread and increasing problem. Plagiarism could be easily detected by journal editors and peer-reviewers if informatics tools would be applied. There is a striking gap between what is technically possible and what is in widespread use. As a consequence of the case described in this report, JMIR has taken the lead in applying information technology to prevent and fight plagiarism by routinely checking new submissions for evidence of cyberplagiarism.