Different Patterns of Duplicate Publication

Abstract

Context Duplicate publication is publication of an article that overlaps substantially with an article published elsewhere. Patterns of duplication are not well understood. Objective To investigate duplication patterns and propose a decision tree for classification. Data Sources We searched a comprehensive list of systematic reviews (1989 through August 15, 2002) in anesthesia and analgesia that is accessible on the Internet. We selected published full articles of duplicates that had been identified in these systematic reviews. Abstracts, letters, or book chapters were excluded. Study Selection and Data Extraction Authors of 56 (40%) of 141 systematic reviews acknowledged identification of duplicates. Duplication patterns were identified independently by all investigators comparing samples and outcomes of pairs of duplicates and main articles. Information on cross-reference, sponsorship, authorship, and publication characteristics was extracted from the articles. Data Synthesis The 56 systematic reviews included 1131 main articles (129337 subjects) and excluded 103 duplicates (12589 subjects) that originated from 78 main articles. Sixty articles were published twice, 13 three times, 3 four times, and 2 five times. We identified 6 duplication patterns: (1A) identical samples and identical outcomes (21 pairs); (1B) same as 1A but several duplicates assembled (n=16); (2) identical samples and different outcomes (n=24); (3A) increasing sample and identical outcomes (n=11); (3B) decreasing sample and identical outcomes (n=11); (4) different samples and different outcomes (n=20). The prevalence of covert duplicate articles (without a crossreference to the main article) was 5.3% (65/1234). Of the duplicates, 34 (33%) were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, and 66 (64%) had authorship that differed partly or completely from the main article. The median journal impact factor was 1.8 (range, 0.1-29.5) for duplicates and 2.0 (range, 0.4-29.5) for main articles (P=.13). The median annual citation rate was 1.7 (range, 0-27) for duplicates and 2.1 (range, 0-31) for main articles (P=.45). The median number of authors was 4 (range, 1-14) for duplicates and 4 (range, 1-15) for corresponding main articles (P=.02). The median delay in publication between main articles and duplicates was 1 year (range, 0-7 years). Conclusions Duplication goes beyond simple copying. Six distinct duplication patterns were identified after comparing study samples and outcomes of duplicates and corresponding main articles. Authorship was an unreliable criterion. Duplicates were published in journals with similar impact factors and were cited as frequently as main articles.

How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors

“…Six reviewers (5%) analysed the impact of sponsors on the results of the review. B (4,15,26,32),J12,L8 One reviewer claimed that sponsor bias was unlikely, L8 while three were unable to identify any sponsor bias. B(4,15),J12 Finally, two reviews identified sponsor bias (see online supplementary appendix table 3A).…”

“…14 Unreported outcomes may be unearthed by contacting the authors of original articles, and multiple publications based on the same cohort of patients can be identified and excluded from analyses. 15 Authors of systematic reviews (further called: systematic reviewers or reviewers) can also use sensitivity analyses to quantify the impact sponsors' and authors' personal interests have on the conclusions of a review. Finally, it has been suggested that, as part of the process of systematic reviewing, ethical approval of included studies or trials should be checked on in order to identify unethical research.…”

“Salami Slicing” in Pooled Analyses of Second-Generation Antipsychotics for the Treatment of Depression

“…Academic authors (aka “key opinion leaders”) typically serve as authors, augmenting the credibility of journal articles via their perceived expertise and independence from the sponsor, which enhances the value of the drug brand [1,3]. Most research on duplicative publications has focused on overlapping publications of individual clinical trials [4], whereas pooled analyses have received scant attention [5]. …”

The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature

“…112 From the six patterns of duplicate publication (including copy, least publishable unit, meat extender, and disaggregation) that they identify from their analysis of systematic reviews of papers in perioperative medicine, they develop a decision tree for identifying such patterns.…”