Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of

Abstract

Purpose: Redundant publications occur when authors publish a partial or complete duplicate of data from an existing manuscript. The push for academic advancement in medicine may result in redundant publications that erode the quality of literature. We sampled the extent of redundancy within the Journal of Urology. Methods: Original articles published in the Journal of Urology in 2006 were reviewed. MEDLINE was used to identify suspected duplicate publications by combining the last names of the first, second and last authors with keywords provided by the article. Results were limited to 2004 to 2008. Two investigators reviewed the suspected duplicate publications and classified them as duplicate, probable duplicate and salami-slicing. Results: We screened 723 original articles. Of these original articles, 13 (1.8%) had some form of redundancy. One (0.1%) original article had a duplicate article, 5 (0.7%) original articles had probable duplicates, and 7 (1%) original articles were salamisliced. The proportion of redundant articles published prior to, and following, their 2006 index article was 5/13 (38.5%) and 7/13 (53.8%), respectively. One duplicate (7.7%) was published in the same month as its index. Conclusion: Detection of redundant publications is a laborious process for reviewers and editors. This sampling of the Journal of Urology revealed that the duplication rate in this journal is small, but significant. Further assessment of the urological literature is warranted.

Pitfalls and Misconducts in Medical Writing

“…9 A form of salami publication is the so-called "meat extender" publication, where the same group of authors publish a new article adding only a small number of new cases in previously published data and extending an original database by <50%. 4 Duplicate publications add undue stress on editors, reviewers, and publishing staff, wasting their time and resources reviewing a paper, artificially promote authors' curriculum vitae (CV), and worst of all, may cause confusion about the real incidence of diseases. 4,9 All medical journals require authors to state that the work has been neither published nor is being considered for publication by another journal.…”

“…4 Duplicate publications add undue stress on editors, reviewers, and publishing staff, wasting their time and resources reviewing a paper, artificially promote authors' curriculum vitae (CV), and worst of all, may cause confusion about the real incidence of diseases. 4,9 All medical journals require authors to state that the work has been neither published nor is being considered for publication by another journal. However, there are situations where duplicate publications are allowed including (1) articles previously published only in abstract form, (2) publications in English directed toward a worldwide audience of data previously published in a local language and vice versa, and (3) simultaneous publication in many journals of guidelines affecting more than one group of specialties.…”

“…In all these cases, the authors should fully disclose that part or the entire article that was previously published and final approval is at editor's discretion. 4 Authors should not quote these so-called "parallel" articles in their CVs as separate pieces of work. 11 The intention of deceiving is the central aspect of any publication misconduct.…”

Découpage vertueux – saucissonnage – double publication. Où commence la fraude ?

“…Là, où autrefois un auteur proposait un seul article à partir d'une étude, il aura aujourd'hui tendance à proposer à un même journal ou à plusieurs journaux, plusieurs articles provenant de la même étude. Ce comportement n'est pas marginal mais sa fréquence est difficile à analyser : très faible pour Durani (1 %) [1] ou Hennessey et al (1,8 %) [2], importante pour Schein et Paladugu [3] (plus de 15 %) ! La raison profonde en est évidemment le souhait ou le besoin d'allonger la liste des publications pour se faire connaître, ou faciliter une carrière universitaire, ou alimenter les publications de son université et les subventions qui en découlent, sans parler d'éventuels intérêts financiers, ou tout cela à la fois [4][5][6] Gardons nous bien de systématiquement critiquer cette pratique : il existe un découpage « vertueux » lorsque le sujet l'impose.…”

Legitimate division of large data sets, salami slicing and dual publication, where does a fraud begin?

“…In dual publication, the authors knowingly submit two manuscripts reporting identical data to two different journals, either simultaneously or successively. This behaviour, designated dual publication or self-plagiarism by ethics committees (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE [1]; and the Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE [4]), clearly constitutes fraud, since the publication of a manuscript in a journal implies copyright transfer to that particular journal. However, the publication of the article in a different language can take place, provided the original article is cited and permission is obtained from the journal that published it.…”