Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg?

Schein, Moshe; Paladugu, Ramesh

doi:10.1067/msy.2001.114549

Cited by 141 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Papers were defined as "suspected" duplicate publications if they were found to address the same topic as the index article and shared either the same methodology or the same results or conclusions. 3 Full versions of all suspected duplicate publications were then retrieved and two senior investigators (KA, AEM), each blind to the other, reviewed the suspected duplicate publications and classified …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,2 Recently, the criteria for a duplicate publication have been clearly defined by the editors of Surgery and should be considered fraudulent except if: (1) they are only published in abstract form, (2) a manuscript extends an original database by 50% or more, or (3) a manuscript has been published previously in a non-English language journal. 3 Redundant publication may result from a "publish or perish" culture, in which the number of publications in peerreviewed journals is used to measure scholarly achievement. This is a reality of academic life necessary for career progression.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of

Hennessey

Williams

Afshar

et al. 2013

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of

Hennessey

Williams

Afshar

et al. 2013

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These include plagiarism (Braumoeller, 2001;Monostori, 2002;Cook, 2002;Hoad, 2003;Gilbert, 2003;Pecorari, 2003;Chen, 2004;Bao, 2004), duplicate/ redundant publication (Doherty, 1996;Jefferson, 1998;Schein, 2001;Bailey, 2002;Von Elm, 2004;Mojon-Azzi, 2004;Gwilym, 2004), text/ document clustering (Maderlechner, 1997;Atlam, 2003;Dobrynin, 2004;Shin, 2004;Bansal, 2004), and information retrieval (Salton, 1991;Hui, 2004;Leuski, 2004;Muresan, 2004;Chang, 2004). These studies have shown that, in general, identifying similar documents through concept matching is quite difficult.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duplicate publication and ‘paper inflation’ in the fractals literature

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In their editorial, Brand et al list the various labels in the literature for this generally condemned practice: 103 least publishable unit, salami slicing, salami science, meat extender publication, and more charitably, redundancy and disaggregation. Schein Surgery and Archives of Surgery and found that one in six papers constituted some form of redundant publication, 104 an unhappy result that provoked their calls for more diligent screening of manuscripts and more severe sanctions for culprits.…”

Section: Redundancymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Souder

2011

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review summarizes the literature of a subset of the published research and commentary on peer review – the ethics of peer review. It attempts to track the various ethical issues that arise among the key participants in peer‐review systems: authors, editors, referees, and readers. These issues include: bias, courtesy, conflict of interest, redundant publication, honesty, transparency, and training. It concludes that debates over such issues as open vs. blind reviews continue unresolved but that new technologies offer some prospects for resolving old issues while they also may create new challenges.

show abstract

Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg?

Cited by 141 publications

References 28 publications

Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of

Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of

Duplicate publication and ‘paper inflation’ in the fractals literature

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About