Duplicate redundant publications quality should take precedence over quantity (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.
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.
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
Investigating the root causes of duplicate publication in research articles
Journal of education and health promotion
Duplicate publication is the republication of an article in which a lot of important parts overlap with the published copy. This issue is nearly at the top of the list of subjects, which medical journal editors discuss. this study was conducted with the purpose of investigating the publication patterns and determining it's root causes in research articles in the Isfahan University of Medical Science and to find a solution to prevent it. In a cross sectional study, All the discovered cases of duplicate publication, which were referred to the ethics committee of the Isfahan University of Medical Science during 2005-2008 were selected to be investigated through a descriptive method. After confirmation about the case of a duplicate publication, the requisite investigation was conducted through interviews and review of the correspondence and documentaries, and then, a radical line was charted. After investigating the cases and classifying the radical causes and incidents, categorizat...
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...
PUBLISH OR PERISH': THE PITFALLS OF DUPLICATE PUBLICATION
Palaeontology, 2006
Abstract: Duplication of previously published text or figures in the scientific literature without adequate citation is plagiarism or, in the case of an author's own work, self-plagiarism. It breaches the ethical standards that are expected in science and threatens the integrity of scientific journals. Three examples of duplication are noted, one of which involves Palaeontology. Redundant publication lowers the quality of scientific literature, damages the good standing of journals, and reduces the intellectual impact of a study. Multiple papers on a particular theme are only acceptable if each builds significantly upon previous work and contains only as much background information as necessary to put the new data and observations into perspective.
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