Publication Dynamics Where Evidence Is Missing: Mapping Empty Reviews in Nursing

INTRODUCTION: The production of science is characterized by socio-political and technological forces that influence what knowledge is produced. In this context, empty reviews have received little attention, with debate ranging over the pros and cons of their publication. However, their dissemination may improve the ability to recognize and prioritize research gaps. The main aim of the study was to map empty reviews published in nursing science. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review in accordance with Arksey and O'Malley, Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. The review protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework database in April 2025. Four databases and grey literature were searched; there were eligible scoping or systematic reviews defined as "empty" in the field of nursing. A modified framework of Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations was used to summarize the extracted data. RESULTS: Fifteen empty reviews were identified. In terms of Patterns, the empty reviews were mainly published in high-income countries over the last 10 years and related to clinical practise and outcomes, education and training, organizational and human resources, and approaches to maternity care, mental health, and nursing education. In general, reporting guidelines were used, while funding was not documented. In terms of Recommendations, more primary studies, the development of tools and the strategic use of empty reviews to inform the funding and research agenda were suggested. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Empty reviews in nursing may indicate neglected or emerging areas that can help orient research agendas to ensure equity-oriented priorities and reduce the marginalization of under-investigated topics. Recognizing empty reviews as legitimate scholarly outputs supports transparent mapping of knowledge gaps, helping funders, institutions, and research programs direct resources to under-investigated areas. Dedicated registries that publicly report empty reviews, establish minimum reporting standards, and require explicit keywords in titles and abstracts would improve transparency and accessibility, and stimulate targeted primary research that can turn "empty" areas into active inquiry. From this perspective, empty reviews may attract research investment rather than be seen as methodological failures.