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 253 records · Page 14Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

Research misconduct.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗
PubMed2003

Consensus and contention regarding redundant publications in clinical research: cross-sectional survey of editors and authors.

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.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Now what?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗
PubMed2004

[Poor scientific behavior in communication of biomedical results].

INTRODUCTION: The generically known as poor scientific behavior exists in different degrees with regard to biomedical communications and publications. From authentic fraud in the data up to the called "tricks" for curriculum fattening. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The objective of this work is to review the works presented in the XVIII Congress of the Andalusian Society of Internal Medicine (Marbella, October 2001), comparing them with the abstracts books of six more scientific meetings and congresses both regional and national. RESULTS: Of the 183 works evaluated in this review, 22 (12.02%) were doubled and 13 (7.10%) fragmented, in other words, a total of 35 (19.33%). The groups that presented communications were 36, and 17 of them (47.22%) carried out one or both fraudulent tactics. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the little bibliographic reference, in our environment exists the duplication and the fragmentation of works presented, in general as a system for curriculum increase. We advocate a higher clarity and commitment in the relationship between editors and authors, and an upsurge of the aspects of punishable deontological regulation on the one hand and of the ethics or a priori commitment on the other one.

Behavior↗