Consensus and contention regarding redundant publications in clinical research: cross-sectional survey of editors and authors.
(1/17)
OBJECTIVES: To examine the perspectives of journal editors and authors on overlapping and redundant publications in clinical research. DESIGN: Pretested cross-sectional survey, containing both forced choice and open ended questions, administered by mail to the senior editors (N=99) and one randomly selected author (N=99) from all journals in the Abridged Index Medicus (1996) that published clinical research. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The views of editors and authors about the extent of redundant publications, why they occur, how to prevent and respond to cases, and when the publication of overlapping manuscripts is justified. RESULTS: Seventy two per cent (N=71) of editors and 65% (N=64) of authors completed the survey. There was consensus between both groups that redundant publications occur because authors feel the pressure to publish and journals do not do enough to publicise, criticise, and punish cases, and that the publication of most types of overlapping articles is unacceptable. Sixty seven per cent of authors but only 31% of editors felt, however, that it was justified to publish an overlapping article in a non-peer reviewed symposium supplement, and 68% of editors but 39% of authors supported imposing restrictions on guilty authors' future submissions. In written comments, 15% to 30% of both groups emphasised that it was justified to publish overlapping articles when there were different or non-English-speaking audiences, new data, strengthened methods, or disputed findings. CONCLUSIONS: Editors, authors, and other academic leaders should together develop explicit guidelines that clarify points of contention and ambiguity regarding overlapping manuscripts. (+info)
One in 13 'original' articles in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery are duplicate or fragmented publications.
(2/17)
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. The prevalence of duplicate publications in the orthopaedic literature appears to be less than that in other surgical specialties but it is still a matter of concern. It is the author's responsibility to notify the editor of any duality when submitting a paper for publication. (+info)
An observational study of duplicate presentation rates between two national orthopedic meetings.
(3/17)
BACKGROUND: National meetings such as those of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) are invaluable in the dissemination of new research findings. Given the limits of meeting agendas, investigators who present the same paper at multiple meetings prevent other presentations on potentially important original research. To determine the incidence of duplicate presentation of research between recent COA and AAOS meetings and between national meetings (AAOS and subspecialty), we conducted an observational study. METHODS: We hand-searched all podium papers and posters from the 2001 COA annual meeting for duplicate presentation at the 2001 and 2002 AAOS annual meetings and subspecialty meetings held in the USA. We evaluated summary data abstracted from the duplicate presentations for consistency. RESULTS: Of 148 presentations at the 2001 COA meeting, 29 presentations (paper and poster) were duplicated at the 2001 or 2002 AAOS meeting: effectively 1 paper in 5 (19.5%). Canadian investigators were significantly more likely to present the same paper at both meetings than Americans (79% v. 13%, respectively; p < 0.01). Those who presented papers at COA altered their AAOS presentations in a variety of ways: by changing the wording in the title of their paper (24% of the time), adding or removing authors (38%), changing authorship order (34%) and changing the sample size (31%). Duplicate presentation rates between AAOS and other orthopedic subspecialty meetings averaged 11.4% (range 3.4%-26.4%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a 20% duplicate presentation rate between the COA and AAOS annual meetings, and an 11% rate between the AAOS and subspecialty meetings. Stricter enforcement of guidelines and improved dissemination of research findings at both national meetings may limit this practice. (+info)
Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors.
(4/17)
Editors of scientific journals need to be conversant with the mechanisms by which scientific misconduct is amplified by publication practices. This paper provides definitions, ways to document the extent of the problem, and examples of editorial attempts to counter fraud. Fabrication, falsification, duplication, ghost authorship, gift authorship, lack of ethics approval, non-disclosure, 'salami' publication, conflicts of interest, auto-citation, duplicate submission, duplicate publications, and plagiarism are common problems. Editorial misconduct includes failure to observe due process, undue delay in reaching decisions and communicating these to authors, inappropriate review procedures, and confounding a journal's content with its advertising or promotional potential. Editors also can be admonished by their peers for failure to investigate suspected misconduct, failure to retract when indicated, and failure to abide voluntarily by the six main sources of relevant international guidelines on research, its reporting and editorial practice. Editors are in a good position to promulgate reasonable standards of practice, and can start by using consensus guidelines on publication ethics to state explicitly how their journals function. Reviewers, editors, authors and readers all then have a better chance to understand, and abide by, the rules of publishing. (+info)
Misconduct by researchers and authors.
(5/17)
Most scientific research is conducted properly and reported honestly but a few authors invent or manipulate data to reach fraudulent conclusions. Other types of misconduct include deliberately providing incomplete or improperly processed data, failure to follow ethical procedures, failure to obtain informed consent, breach of patient confidentiality, improper award or denial of authorship, failure to declare competing interests, duplicate submission and plagiarism. Editors, peer reviewers and publishers may also act wrongly. Good practice guidelines are available from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (The Vancouver Group) and the Council of Science Editors, amongst others. The Committee on Publication Ethics provides flowcharts to assist editors deal with authorial misconduct. Examples are provided of cases involving epidemiological or public health research, reported to COPE over the last 9 years. Suggestions are offered as to how misconduct might be handled in future. (+info)
Duplicate Publications in Korean medical journals indexed in KoreaMed.
(6/17)