Duplicate publication and 'salami slicing': Ethical issues and practical solutions (original) (raw)
Related papers
Thorax, 2002
We are writing to express our unease at what we believe is inappropriate censure imposed on our colleague Professor Corris concerning duplicate publications. 1 2 Professor Corris was asked to write what was essentially a CME article for Clinical Medicine on a subject that he had recently reviewed in detail for Thorax. It was inevitable that there would be considerable duplication. The same papers and information were being disucssed and there are limitations in the way complex arguments can be expressed. It is universally accepted that a degree of duplication in review articles is completely different from trying to pass off as a new study previously published peer reviewed papers containing original data. It is commonplace for people with authoritative opinions to write similar articles in more than one journal as shown by the similarities between the Harveian oration by Warrell published in the same issue of Clinical Medicine and an earlier manuscript in the Lancet. 3 4 We believe such duplication is entirely appropriate, as surely it is our duty as educators to disseminate information to as wide an audience as possible. Fraud in any shape or form in science is to be wholly deplored, but let us not be so zealous in its pursuit that we smear the innocent to the detriment of us all. At risk of another duplicate publication, we have also sent this letter to the editor of Clinical Medicine.
Duplicate and salami publication: a prevalence study of journal policies
International Journal of Epidemiology, 2019
Background: Duplicate and salami publication are unethical, but are common practices with substantial consequences for science and society at large. Scientific journals are the 'gatekeepers' of the publication process. We investigated journal policies on duplicate and salami publication. Methods: In 2018, we performed a content analysis of policies of journals in the disciplines of 'epidemiology and public health' and 'general and internal medicine'. Journal policies were searched, extracted, coded and cross-checked. The associations of disciplinary categories and journal impact factors with journal policies were examined using Poisson regression models with a robust error variance. Results: A total of 209 journals, including 122 in epidemiology and public health and 87 in general and internal medicine, were sampled and their policies investigated. Overall, 18% of journals did not have any policies on either practice, 33% only referred to a generic guideline or checklist without explicit mention about either practice, 36% included policies on duplicate publication and only 13% included policies on both duplicate and salami publication. Having explicit journal policies did not differ by journal disciplinary categories (epidemiology and public health vs general and internal medicine) or impact factors. Further analysis of journals with explicit policies found that although duplicate publication is universally discouraged, policies on salami publication are inconsistent and lack specific definitions of inappropriate divisions of papers. Conclusions: Gaps exist in journal policies on duplicate and salami publication, characterized by an overall lack of explicit policies, inconsistency and confusion in definitions of bad practices, and lack of clearly defined consequences for non-compliance. Scientific
Duplicate redundant publications quality should take precedence over quantity
Yank and Barnes, did a land mark survey of editors and authors to assess their views regarding overlapping Duplicate/redundant publications: quality should take precedence over quantity How to cite this article : Bipeta R. Duplicate/ redundant publications: quality should take precedence over quantity. AP J Psychol Med 2013; 14(1):1-4.
2015
DUPLICATE PUBLICATION IS THEpublication of an article thatoverlaps substantiallywithanarticle published else-where.1 This practice may be accept-able in particular situations. However, authorsmust acknowledge themain ar-ticle overtly by using a cross-reference. Covert duplicate publication has been widely disapproved.2,3 This practice is wasteful of the time and resources of edi-tors, peer reviewers, and readers, and it is misleading because undue weight is given to observations that are being re-ported repeatedly.When duplicates are inadvertently included in a systematic review, the conclusion of that system-atic review may change.4 Finally, co-vert duplicate publication is dishonest; it undermines the integrity of science.5 Little is known about patterns of duplicate publication. Also, character-istics of duplicates are not well under-stood, and there is no common agree-ment on how to classify them. We set out to investigate patterns of dupli-cate publication and to propose a de-c...
A CLEAR CASE OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT: DUPLICATE PUBLICATION AND PLAGIARISM
In light of uncontrolled evolution of journals, the standards of scientific communications have shown a gradual decline. In the name of open access publication, many journals and publishers have emerged throughout the world undermining the real motive of scholarly communications. With many publishers in fray to share the income generated from the article processing charges, the journals are in a hurry to accept most of the submissions without adequate peer evaluation. Copy and paste contents of previously published papers, creating duplicate publications with minor changes to the original one and plagiarism of papers without crediting the original authors (not citing the source) have been on the rise ever since, we saw increasing open access journal publishers. Pay per publication is now a common scenario in scientific publications
Duplicate Publication and Related Problems in the Pediatrics Literature
Global pediatric health, 2014
Objective. The aim of this study was to (a) determine the rate of redundant publication in the pediatrics literature and (b) to characterize these articles. Methods. Index articles in JAMA Pediatrics, Pediatrics, and the Journal of Pediatrics from 2010 were identified using PubMed. Possible redundant material from 2008 to 2012 were searched using the authors' names. Suspected duplicates were categorized into "duplicate publication" or "salami-slicing" (part of the index article repeated or continued). Results. Of the 1838 index articles, 39 (2.1%) were found to have some form of redundancy. Specifically, 45 articles were identified as salami-sliced, which corresponded to the 39 index articles. Fifteen salami-sliced articles did not reference the corresponding index article, 2 vaguely referenced the index article, and 28 had clear references to the respective index article. Conclusion. Salami-slicing was a common practice. Salami-slicing may be acceptable in c...