Duplicate Publication and Related Problems in the Pediatrics Literature (original) (raw)
Related papers
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...
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Background One of the frequently used methods for assessing research trends and the impact of published scientific literature in a particular discipline is citation analysis. Journals may strive to improve their metrics by choosing manuscripts and study designs that are more likely to be cited. The aim of this study was to identify the 50 most-cited articles in the field of pediatrics, analyze their study design and other characteristics of those articles, and assess the prevalence of systematic reviews among them. Methods In December 2017, we searched Web of Science (WoS) for all articles published in the field of pediatrics. Two authors screened articles independently and in the further analysis included 50 articles with the highest number of citations. To avoid bias for scientific papers published earlier, the citation density was calculated. We also analyzed Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of journals where citation classics were published. Results The citation density in top 50 cit...
Citation classics in pediatrics: a bibliometric analysis
World Journal of Pediatrics, 2018
Background Citation analysis provides insights into the history and developmental trajectory of scientific fields. Our objective was to perform an analysis of citation classics in the journals of pediatric specialty and to examine their characteristics. Methods Initially, all the journals listed under the category of pediatrics (n = 120) were identified using Journal Citation Reports. Web of science database was then searched (1950-2016) to select the top-100 cited articles in the above identified pediatric journals. The top-100 cited article were categorized according the study design, sub-specialty, country, institutional affiliation, and language. Results The top-100 articles were published in 18 different journals, with Pediatrics having the highest numbers (n = 40), followed by The Journal of Pediatrics (n = 17). The majority (n = 62) of classics were published after 1990. The most cited article had citation count of 3516 and the least cited had a citation count of 593. The USA (n = 71) was the most commonly represented country, and 60 institutions contributed to 100 articles. Fifteen authors contributed to more than one classic as first or second author. Observational study (n = 55) was the commonest study design across all decades, followed by reviews (n = 12), scale development studies (n = 11), and guidelines (n = 11). Among the pediatric sub-specialties, growth and development articles were highly cited (n = 24), followed by pediatric psychiatry and behavior (n = 21), endocrinology (n = 15), and neonatology (n = 12). Conclusions The top-100 cited articles in pediatrics identify the impactful authors, journals, institutes, and countries. Observational study design was predominant-implying that inclusion among citation classics is not related to soundness of study design.
Pediatric case reports: assessing recommendations from journals' instructions to authors
Hospital pediatrics, 2014
Case reports (CRs) can be valuable contributions to medical knowledge and education. Objective assessments of publication potential and content recommendations for pediatric CRs are lacking. The "Instructions to Authors" provided by pediatric journals were assessed to determine journal characteristics, manuscript restrictions, and advice to writers. Pediatric journals referenced in the National Center for Biotechnology Information databases were identified by using the search term "pediatric." Further inclusion criteria were: active journals; currently indexed in the PubMed, Ovid, and/or Medline databases; and English as the primary language. Sixty-nine (52%) of 132 pediatric journals surveyed published CRs per their author instructions. The median 2011 impact factor for accepting journals was 1.28 (range: 0.47-5.44) compared with 2.40 (range: 0.59-5.50) for journals that did not publish CRs (P < .001). Twelve (67%) of 18 pediatric surgical specialty journals,...
Pediatric publications in family medicine journals: quantity and content
Canadian family physician Médecin de famille canadien, 2005
To investigate the number and content of articles on pediatric medicine in family medicine journals. Computerized survey in PubMed of the abstracts of all papers published between 2000 and 2002 in four family medicine journals. Abstracts were classified as research or nonresearch. Papers dealing with pediatric medicine were further categorized by main subject area. Two North American family medicine journals and two British family medicine journals. Number and content of abstracts in family medicine journals: research or not research, describing children only or including adults. Of 1199 abstracts reviewed, 947 (79%) were from research articles and 252 (21%) from nonresearch articles. Of the research abstracts, 73 (7.7%) related to pediatric problems, and 28 (3%) related to both pediatric and adult problems. Of the nonresearch abstracts, 22 (8.7%) involved pediatric patients and 7 (2.8%) combined pediatric and adult populations. In all, nearly 11% of the articles related to pediatri...
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 publication in radiology journals
AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2015
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rate of duplicate publication in radiology journals. The secondary objective is to evaluate the sensitivity of iThenticate. From January 1993 to December 2013, Déjà Vu (a database of highly similar citations) and PubMed were used to search for similar citations in 53 radiology journals. Citations were screened independently by two reviewers and verified by a third using predefined criteria to determine true cases of duplicate publication. The overall rate of duplicate publication was calculated; analysis of rate by journal, impact factor, and publication year was performed. The sensitivity of iThenticate was evaluated by analyzing all identified duplicate publications. From 128,818 citations in the included journals, 1786 (Déjà Vu) and 104 (PubMed) were flagged as potential duplicates. Of these, 248 (226 from Déjà Vu and 22 from PubMed) were classified as true duplicate publications after application of our criteria. The overall rate was ...
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2004
Duplicate publication in orthopaedic journals may further an author's academic career but this is at the cost of both scientific integrity and knowledge. Multiple publications of the same work increase the workload of editorial boards, misguide the reader and affect the process of meta-analysis. We found that of 343 'original' articles published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in 1999, 26 (7.6%) had some degree of redundancy.
Different Patterns of Duplicate Publication
JAMA, 2004
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.
Tendencies in medical publications
Medicina Universitaria, 2015
Objectives: To describe the trends of research design in publications from high-impact medical journals. Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted by searching the 2011 electronic publications of the journals: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Studies were classified as primary and secondary. The journal impact factor was taken from the Journal Citation Report website. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze and interpret the data. Results: We analyzed 1130 publications: 804 primary and 326 secondary studies, which represented 71.2% and 28.8% of the total publications, respectively. Among the primary studies, randomized clinical trials (30.4%) were the most prevalent, followed by cohort studies (21.9%) and case reports (9.0%). Conclusions: These findings can have implications in Evidence-Based Medicine programs. Literature review should focus on reviewing secondary articles first, then experimental studies and finally, observational studies.