Abstract
Background. A redundant publication is one which duplicates previous, simultaneous, or future
publications by the same author or group or, alternatively, could have been combined
with the latter into one paper. As there is no information about the extent of this
problem in the surgical literature, we set out to assess the incidence, spectrum,
and salient characteristics of redundant publications in 3 leading surgical journals.
Methods. Original articles (excluding reviews, editorials, abstracts, and letters) published
during 1998 in the journals Surgery, The British Journal of Surgery, and Archives
of Surgery were searched by using the on-line search engine PUBMED. Each original
article was scrutinized to identify redundancy by combining the names of the first,
second, and last authors with a few key words from the title. Papers were defined
as “suspected” redundant publications if they were found to address the same topic
as the “index” article and shared some or most of the elements of methodology, results,
or conclusions. The full versions of all suspected papers were retrieved and compared
with the index articles. A grading system was developed to define several types of
redundant publications: A. “dual”; B. “potentially dual”; C. “salami-slicing.” Results. A total of 660 articles were screened. There were 92 index articles (14%) leading
to 147 suspected papers found in other journals, representing some potential form
of a redundant publication. The vast majority of suspected papers were published within
approximately a year of the index paper and were not cited by the latter. Most (69%)
of the suspected papers were also published in surgical journals. Only 12 (8.1%) appeared
in, or originated from, a “local-foreign” journal. Twenty (13.6%) of the suspected
papers met the criteria for dual publications, 50 (34%) for potentially dual publications,
and 77 (52.4%) were considered products of salami-slicing. Conclusions. Almost 1 in every 6 original articles published in leading surgical journals represents
some form of redundancy. Current on-line search technology provides an effective tool
for identifying and tracing such publications, but it is not used routinely as part
of the peer review process. Redundancies occur in several well-defined patterns; the
phenomenon is widespread, and it cuts across the entire spectrum of surgeons in the
United States and abroad. Redundant publications must be recognized not as a mere
nuisance but as a real threat to the quality and intellectual impact of surgical publishing.
(Surgery 2001;129:655-61.)
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- N Engl J Med. 1969; 28: 676-677
- The Ingelfinger Rule.N Engl J Med. 1981; 305: 824-826
- The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited.N Engl J Med. 1991; 325: 1371-1373
- Statement by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on Duplicate or Redundant Publication.JAMA. 1993; 270: 2495
- BMJ. 1991; 302 (International Committee of Medical Journals Editors): 338-341
- Redundant publication: a reminder.N Engl J Med. 1995; 333: 449-1448
- Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research.Lancet. 1996; 13: 1024-1026
- Duplicate publication.BMJ. 1992; 18: 999-1000
- Research misconduct.Gut. 1997; 41: 1-2
- Duplicate publication [editorial].Chest. 1998; 114: 951
- Dual publication and manipulation of the editorial process.Arch Dermatol. 1990; 126: 1625-1626
- Duplicate publication and related problems.Arch Dis Child. 1990; 65: 1289-1290
- Prior, duplicate, repetitive, fragmented, and redundant publication and editorial decisions.Am J Public Health. 1993; 83: 792-793
- Ethics in publishing.Br J Anaesth. 1991; 66: 421-422
- Duplicate publications: it's not so much the duplicity as it is the deceit.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999; 172: 1-2
- Br J Surg. 1992; 79: 601
- Dual publication (almost) [comment].Br J Surg. 1995; 82: 581
- Publication misdemeanor. Two articles for comparison.Br J Surg. 1999; 86: 598-599
- Resolution of problem needed [letter].Am J Surg. 1999; 177: 525
- Ethics in publication and the “operator.”.Anesthesiology. 1991; 75: 545-546
- Is duplicate publishing on the increase?.BMJ. 1992; 304: 1029
- Salami slicing, shotgunning, and the ethics of authorship.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999; 173: 265
- Misconduct in medical research: does it exist in Britain?.BMJ. 1988; 297: 1531-1535
- Duplication of surgical research presentations.BMJ. 1997; 314: 346-347
- Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study.BMJ. 1997; 315: 635-640
- Duplicate publication of articles in the Dutch Journal of Medicine in 1996.Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1999 23; 143: 2150-2153
- Dual publication of abstracts [comment].Br J Anaesth. 1992; 68: 5
- Role of the journal editor in sustaining integrity in research.Acad Med. 1993; 68: S23-S29
- Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature.Acad Med. 1999; 74: 221-230
- Br J Surg. 2000; 87: 6-7
- Duplicate publication [letter].BMJ. 1992; 304: 1314
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
December 5,
2000
Footnotes
*Reprint requests: Moshe Schein, MD, Department of Surgery, New York Methodist Hospital, 516 Sixth St, Brooklyn, NY 11215.
**Surgery 2001;129:655-61.
Identification
Copyright
© 2001 Mosby, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
