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.. ...

Besides giving authors insight into deficiencies in the submitted work, reviewer comments should acknowledge positive aspects of the material under review, present negative aspects constructively, and indicate the improvements needed. Reviewers should explain and support their judgment so that editors and authors may understand the basis of the comments. Any statement that an observation or argument has been previously reported must be accompanied by a relevant citation. Reviewers should alert PNAS immediately if they have concerns about ethical issues (such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, or data fabrication or falsification) or concerns that release of the paper may pose a danger to public health, safety, and security (see Dual Use Research of Concern).. The purpose of peer review is not to demonstrate the reviewers proficiency in identifying flaws; negative critiques are not obligated. Reviewers should identify strengths and provide constructive comments to help authors resolve ...

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 ...

Above all, authors should be transparent. For example, if an author is not sure whether her paper is original (for instance, whether it might constitute duplicate publication), she should inform the journals editor. If the editor decides it is appropriate to publish, the paper itself should state clearly any potential overlap.. The editor or peer reviewer of any Biolife publication shall evaluate manuscripts on their intellectual content, irrespective of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The editor and any editorial staff shall not disclose any confidential information concerning a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, or publisher, as appropriate. The content of any unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript is not to be used, either in whole or in part, in an editors own research without the express ...

For additional editorial, legal, and ethical policies, please visit the Instructions for Authors.. Duplicate Publication, Plagiarism and Fabrication. Manuscripts containing original material are accepted for consideration if neither the article nor any part of its essential substance, tables, or figures has been or will be published or submitted elsewhere before appearing in Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) (in part or in full, in other words or in the same words, in English or in another language), and will not be submitted elsewhere unless rejected by the Journal or withdrawn by the author. (This restriction is exclusive of abstracts of the Work submitted for presentation to learned societies and scholarly forums.) Simultaneous submissions of the same article to multiple journals are prohibited. If an author violates this requirement or engages in similar misconduct, Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM)s Editorial Board may reject the manuscript or impose a moratorium on acceptance of new manuscripts ...