If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patients written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms] ...
Covert duplicate publication violates the ethics of scientific publishing and may constitute a violation of copyright law. Editors have a duty to inform prospective authors of their policies on duplicate publication, which should be published in their instructions for authors. Reviewers should notify editors of the existence of duplicate articles discovered during their review. Authors should send copies of all duplicate or overlapping articles and manuscripts with their submitted manuscripts. Authors should also include citations to highly similar articles and any reports from the same study under their authorship in the reference list of the submitted manuscript. When in doubt
Covert duplicate publication violates the ethics of scientific publishing and may constitute a violation of copyright law. Editors have a duty to inform prospective authors of their policies on duplicate publication, which should be published in their instructions for authors. Reviewers should notify editors of the existence of duplicate articles discovered during their review. Authors should send copies of all duplicate or overlapping articles and manuscripts with their submitted manuscripts. Authors should also include citations to highly similar articles and any reports from the same study under their authorship in the reference list of the submitted manuscript. When in doubt
As described above, most of the studies excluded from the meta-analysis were not considered simply because they did not provide the necessary risk and precision estimates, were duplicate publications, or analyzed exposures to coffee and tea together. Relaxing the inclusion criteria to accommodate the remaining studies 35,36,37 the summary risk estimate was 1.05 (95%CI: 0.90-1.23, heterogeneity test: p , 0.001), similar to that obtained in our main analysis.. Discussion. This meta-analysis of studies published during the last three decades showed no overall effect of coffee consumption on gastric cancer risk. However, we observed substantial methodological differences between studies that have potential effect on the risk estimates.. Most studies presented results on the association between coffee and gastric cancer as secondary data analysis or part of confounder evaluation 17,33,38,39,40,41,42,46,47,49,50,51,56,57,58, and it is unlikely that this specific result influenced publication. The ...
A study by Arriero et al (Circ Res. 2002;90:719-727) contained an instance of duplicate publication, in violation of the journals editorial policy (Circulation Research Instructions to Authors, July 12, 2002 issue). Figure 5B, left panel, displayed a gel that had been previously published in at least three other studies (Alonso et al. Mol Cell Biol. 1997;17:5719-5726; Sánchez de Miguel et al. J Vasc Res. 1999;36:201-208; Jimenez et al. Circulation. 2001;104:1822-1830). Moreover, the origin of the materials in the various studies reportedly differed (bovine aortic endothelial cells [Alonso et al. Mol Cell Biol. 1997, and Sánchez de Miguel et al. J Vasc Res. 1999], rabbit aorta [Jimenez et al. Circulation. 2001], and guinea pig pericardium [Arriero et al. Circ Res. 2002]).. In response to this violation of journal policy and American Heart Association standards, the authors institution has been informed, and editorial sanctions have been imposed by the journal after an investigation including ...
Volume 5, no. 5, p. 632-635, 1998. The publisher hereby withdraws this article. It substantially duplicated a previous publication ("Lymphocyte Subset Reference Ranges in Healthy Saudi Arabian Children," by S. Shahabuddin, I. H. Al-Ayed, M. O. Gad El-Rab, and M. I. Qureshi, Pediatr. Allergy Immunol.9:44-48, 1998).. Duplicate publication violates the editorial policy of the American Society for Microbiology as set forth in the Instructions to Authors for all ASM journals.. ...
Abstract:
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes. | my universe
There are two fundamental issues here.. One is scientific misconduct that outrages the individual scientists because we are all trying to make careers and honest science is difficult. Those who cheat with duplicate publications, faked Western blots, etc, are hated simply because they are attempting to get an unfair advantage over those who struggle honestly to make a contribution, publish in a high quality journal, get a grant, tenure, etc. Its a further outrage when journals, universities, and other organizations sometimes seem to turn a blind eye.. The other issue is scientific progress. Here it is not obvious that misconduct is as harmful as might be thought. Honesty and integrity in any individual publication is actually not important in the long term. A paper is valid not because it can be proven to have been done honestly, but because further work, by other people in related fields, yields results that are consistent. Your integrity matters not at all in determining whether the theories ...