Special Articles| Volume 129, ISSUE 6, P655-661, June 2001

Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg?


      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 access
      One-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 to Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. N Engl J Med. 1969; 28: 676-677
        • Relman AS
        The Ingelfinger Rule.
        N Engl J Med. 1981; 305: 824-826
        • Angell M
        • Kassirer JP
        The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited.
        N Engl J Med. 1991; 325: 1371-1373
        • Lundberg GD
        Statement by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on Duplicate or Redundant Publication.
        JAMA. 1993; 270: 2495
      2. BMJ. 1991; 302 (International Committee of Medical Journals Editors): 338-341
        • Kassirer JP
        • Angell M.
        Redundant publication: a reminder.
        N Engl J Med. 1995; 333: 449-1448
        • Huston P
        • Moher D.
        Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research.
        Lancet. 1996; 13: 1024-1026
        • Lowry S
        • Smith J.
        Duplicate publication.
        BMJ. 1992; 18: 999-1000
        • Farthing MJ
        Research misconduct.
        Gut. 1997; 41: 1-2
        • Block AJ
        Duplicate publication [editorial].
        Chest. 1998; 114: 951
        • Hanke CW
        • Arndt KA
        • Dobson RL
        • Dzubow LM
        • Parish LC
        • Taylor JS
        Dual publication and manipulation of the editorial process.
        Arch Dermatol. 1990; 126: 1625-1626
        • Bier DM
        • Fulginiti VA
        • Garfunkel JM
        • Lucey JF
        • Spranger J
        • Valman HB
        • et al.
        Duplicate publication and related problems.
        Arch Dis Child. 1990; 65: 1289-1290
        • Susser M
        • Yankauer A.
        Prior, duplicate, repetitive, fragmented, and redundant publication and editorial decisions.
        Am J Public Health. 1993; 83: 792-793
        • Smith G
        • Miller R
        • Saidman LJ
        • Morgan M.
        Ethics in publishing.
        Br J Anaesth. 1991; 66: 421-422
        • Rogers LF
        Duplicate publications: it's not so much the duplicity as it is the deceit.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999; 172: 1-2
      3. Br J Surg. 1992; 79: 601
        • Williamson RC
        • Farndon JR
        • Murie JA
        • Johnson CD
        • Earnshaw JJ
        Dual publication (almost) [comment].
        Br J Surg. 1995; 82: 581
        • Farndon JR
        • Buchler M.
        Publication misdemeanor. Two articles for comparison.
        Br J Surg. 1999; 86: 598-599
        • Chung RS
        Resolution of problem needed [letter].
        Am J Surg. 1999; 177: 525
        • Knill RL
        Ethics in publication and the “operator.”.
        Anesthesiology. 1991; 75: 545-546
        • Waldron T.
        Is duplicate publishing on the increase?.
        BMJ. 1992; 304: 1029
        • Rogers LF
        Salami slicing, shotgunning, and the ethics of authorship.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999; 173: 265
        • Lock S.
        Misconduct in medical research: does it exist in Britain?.
        BMJ. 1988; 297: 1531-1535
        • Cameron IC
        • Beard JD
        • Reed MW
        Duplication of surgical research presentations.
        BMJ. 1997; 314: 346-347
        • Tramer MR
        • Reynolds DJ
        • Moore RA
        • McQuay HJ
        Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study.
        BMJ. 1997; 315: 635-640
        • Bloemenkamp DG
        • Walvoort HC
        • Hart W
        • Overbeke AJ
        Duplicate publication of articles in the Dutch Journal of Medicine in 1996.
        Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1999 23; 143: 2150-2153
        • Smith G.
        Dual publication of abstracts [comment].
        Br J Anaesth. 1992; 68: 5
        • Caelleigh AS
        Role of the journal editor in sustaining integrity in research.
        Acad Med. 1993; 68: S23-S29
        • Parrish DM
        Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature.
        Acad Med. 1999; 74: 221-230
        • Committee on Publication Ethics
        Br J Surg. 2000; 87: 6-7
        • Livesley B.
        Duplicate publication [letter].
        BMJ. 1992; 304: 1314