PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Duplicate Publications as Topic”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
PubMed1990

Disreputable science: definition and detection.

This paper describes definitions of fraud and misconduct as disreputable science. Some causes and methods of detection of scientific misconduct are identified. These hallmarks of credibility are essential for nursing to advance as a science.

Career Mobility↗
PubMed2005

Author misconduct: not just the editors' responsibility.

BACKGROUND: Researchers everywhere are under increasing pressure to publish in high quality journals. The amount of space available in a journal such as Medical Education has not kept pace with the rise in submissions. Against a background of fierce competition, authors sometimes cut corners. This may lead to misconduct. AIMS: This paper aims to explore the most common types of publication misconduct seen in the Medical Education editorial office, and to consider the reasons for this and the implications for researchers in the field. DISCUSSION: This paper looks at the work of the Committee on Publication Ethics and describes the type of routine, low level misconduct which is increasingly reported by its member journals, including Medical Education. We offer a list of authors' responsibilities as a way of drawing attention to the wide range of individuals affected by author misconduct. The paper outlines 7 representative cases of actual or potential misconduct which have been dealt with in the Medical Education editorial office during the 18-month period to May 2004, putting them in context and using them to illustrate some of the ways in which apparently minor deviations from standard practice can have far reaching implications. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: This paper argues that misconduct affects a wider group than editors, although it is editors who are currently taking the lead in the promotion of standards. The authors suggest that responsibility for maintaining and improving standards in research publication should not be left to editors but should be seen as something in which all researchers have a stake. They support moves to make editors themselves more accountable to their readers and authors.

Authorship↗
PubMed1995

Duplicate publication in the nursing literature.

The purpose of this study was to identify examples of duplicate publication in the nursing literature and determine what types of duplicate articles are published. From the sample of 642 articles published by 77 authors during a 5-year period, 181 articles were classified as duplicate. Forty-one authors published at least one form of duplicate article. Fifty-nine duplicate articles did not reference the primary article. Duplicate publication itself is not unethical, but duplicate publication without referencing duplicate work is unethical and may violate copyright law.

Authorship↗