Retractions in Nursing as a Systems Problem: A Journal Systems Framework Perspective

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Leslie H. Nicoll, Marilyn H. Oermann, Jacqueline K. Owens, Heather Carter-Templeton
{"title":"Retractions in Nursing as a Systems Problem: A Journal Systems Framework Perspective","authors":"Leslie H. Nicoll,&nbsp;Marilyn H. Oermann,&nbsp;Jacqueline K. Owens,&nbsp;Heather Carter-Templeton","doi":"10.1111/jnu.70103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Problem</h3>\n \n <p>Retractions in nursing are often framed as isolated instances of author misconduct or editorial failure. Drawing on recent longitudinal analysis of retracted nursing articles and the Journal Systems Framework (JSF), this Commentary argues that retractions are better understood as system-level signals reflecting differences in editorial capacity, governance, and infrastructure across journal systems.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Between 1997 and 2022, 123 nursing articles were retracted, with persistent concerns related to ethical violations, variability in retraction notice quality, delayed corrective action, and continued post-retraction citation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Applying the JSF highlights how corrective capacity varies across journal systems, shaping the timeliness, transparency, visibility, and downstream amplification of retraction practices. High-profile retractions in flagship journals may reflect greater corrective capacity rather than uniquely severe ethical failure. Interpreting retractions as indicators of system stress, rather than moral anomalies, shifts attention from individual blame toward strengthening editorial infrastructure.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>A systems-aware approach positions nursing scholarship to improve transparency, resilience, and trust as publication volume and complexity continue to grow.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Clinical Relevance</h3>\n \n <p>Because nursing scholarship informs clinical care, education, and policy, failures in the scholarly record have implications beyond publishing itself. Greater understanding of retractions and corrective editorial processes can help strengthen trust in evidence used to guide nursing and health care practice.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51091,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Scholarship","volume":"58 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nursing Scholarship","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnu.70103","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Problem

Retractions in nursing are often framed as isolated instances of author misconduct or editorial failure. Drawing on recent longitudinal analysis of retracted nursing articles and the Journal Systems Framework (JSF), this Commentary argues that retractions are better understood as system-level signals reflecting differences in editorial capacity, governance, and infrastructure across journal systems.

Results

Between 1997 and 2022, 123 nursing articles were retracted, with persistent concerns related to ethical violations, variability in retraction notice quality, delayed corrective action, and continued post-retraction citation.

Discussion

Applying the JSF highlights how corrective capacity varies across journal systems, shaping the timeliness, transparency, visibility, and downstream amplification of retraction practices. High-profile retractions in flagship journals may reflect greater corrective capacity rather than uniquely severe ethical failure. Interpreting retractions as indicators of system stress, rather than moral anomalies, shifts attention from individual blame toward strengthening editorial infrastructure.

Conclusion

A systems-aware approach positions nursing scholarship to improve transparency, resilience, and trust as publication volume and complexity continue to grow.

Clinical Relevance

Because nursing scholarship informs clinical care, education, and policy, failures in the scholarly record have implications beyond publishing itself. Greater understanding of retractions and corrective editorial processes can help strengthen trust in evidence used to guide nursing and health care practice.

撤稿在护理作为一个系统问题:一个期刊系统框架的观点。
问题:护理领域的撤稿通常被认为是作者不当行为或编辑失败的孤立事件。根据最近对撤稿护理文章和期刊系统框架(JSF)的纵向分析,本评论认为,撤稿最好被理解为系统级信号,反映了期刊系统在编辑能力、治理和基础设施方面的差异。结果:1997年至2022年间,123篇护理论文被撤稿,持续存在违反伦理、撤稿通知质量不稳定、纠正措施延迟以及撤稿后持续引用等问题。讨论:应用JSF强调了不同期刊系统的纠正能力是如何变化的,塑造了撤稿实践的及时性、透明度、可见性和下游放大。旗舰期刊的高调撤稿可能反映出更大的纠正能力,而不是唯一严重的道德失败。将撤稿解释为系统压力的指标,而不是道德异常,将注意力从个人指责转移到加强编辑基础设施上。结论:随着出版物数量和复杂性的不断增长,系统意识方法将使护理学术提高透明度、弹性和信任度。临床相关性:由于护理学术影响临床护理,教育和政策,学术记录失败的影响超出了出版本身。更好地了解撤稿和纠正编辑程序可以帮助加强对用于指导护理和卫生保健实践的证据的信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This widely read and respected journal features peer-reviewed, thought-provoking articles representing research by some of the world’s leading nurse researchers. Reaching health professionals, faculty and students in 103 countries, the Journal of Nursing Scholarship is focused on health of people throughout the world. It is the official journal of Sigma Theta Tau International and it reflects the society’s dedication to providing the tools necessary to improve nursing care around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书