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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Duplicate publications: redundancy in plastic surgery literature.

The practice of duplicate publication has been condemned widely in the scientific community and several studies have been conducted to establish the level of the problem in various surgical fields. A retrospective review of original articles from the British Journal of Plastic Surgery and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery during 2000 was conducted, using Medline (PubMed). A total of 431 abstracts were screened, from which 27 index articles related to 33 'suspected redundant' publications. Further evaluation was carried out by comparing the full text versions of these articles and assigning a grade of non-dual, dual, potentially dual and 'salami-slicing'. Only four suspect articles were confirmed as having some degree of redundancy, and these related to three index articles (3/431, <1%). The incidence of duplication in plastic surgery literature seems to be much lower compared to other surgical specialties, providing reassurance for reviewers, editors and readers of these journals.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed2005

Duplicate editorial on duplicate publication.

The authors define and discuss the various forms taken by duplicate publications, and provide suggested remedies to help authors, editors, reviewers, and readers avoid this form of internal plagiarism.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗
PubMed2004

Duplicate publication in the Journal of Hand Surgery.

This study evaluates the extent of duplicate publication in the Hand Surgery literature. A retrospective review of original articles published in the American and the British & European editions of Journal of Hand Surgery during the years 1999 and 2000 was performed using MEDLINE (PUBMED) search engine. Index articles suspected of dual publication were identified by using key words in the title and the names of the first, second and last authors. The full initial text was carefully studied and suspected duplicate articles were classified as dual, potentially dual or fragmented. Six hundred articles were evaluated, of which 25 (4%) index articles were identified with 33 "suspects". Eleven "index" and 15 "suspected" articles were cleared on closer scrutiny. Thus 14 "index" articles (2%) were found to be associated with 18 duplicated articles. Of these, four were classified as dual, five as potentially dual and nine as fragmented. We conclude that although duplicate publication of articles in the Journals of Hand Surgery (American and British/European Volumes) does occur, the incidence in the sample studied is lower than some other surgical journals.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Repetitive, duplicate, and redundant publications: a review for authors and readers.

Repetitive, duplicate, and redundant publications are an important concern in the scientific literature. Their occurrence affects science and carries with it sanctions of consequence. This editorial provides a brief review of the definitions, classifications, impact, sanctions, and prevention strategies regarding repetitive, duplicate, and redundant publications.

Authorship↗
PubMed2006

Publication ethics: editors' perspectives.

The medical literature serves a critical role in the translation of evidence into practice. Although the ethics of research conduct receive considerable attention, much less attention has been focused on the ethics of the publication process. Given how important the process is to the advancement of medicine, this oversight seems unfortunate. This article reviews several salient ethical challenges from the perspective of two editors of a pediatric journal.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2005

Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines.

One challenge for most scientists is avoiding and resolving issues that center around authorship and the publishing of scientific manuscripts. While trying to place the research in proper context, impart new knowledge, follow proper guidelines, and publish in the most appropriate journal, the scientist often must deal with multi-collaborator issues like authorship allocation, trust and dependence, and resolution of publication conflicts. Most guidelines regarding publications, commentaries, and editorials have evolved from the ranks of editors in an effort to diminish the issues that faced them as editors. For example, the Ingelfinger rule attempts to prevent duplicate publications of the same study. This paper provides a historical overview of commonly encountered scientific authorship issues, a comparison of opinions on these issues, and the influence of various organizations and guidelines in regards to these issues. For example, a number of organizations provide guidelines for author allocation; however, a comparison shows that these guidelines differ on who should be an author, rules for ordering authors, and the level of responsibility for coauthors. Needs that emerge from this review are (a) a need for more controlled studies on authorship issues, (b) an increased awareness and a buy-in to consensus views by non-editor groups, e.g., managers, authors, reviewers, and scientific societies, and (c) a need for editors to express a greater understanding of authors' dilemmas and to exhibit greater flexibility. Also needed are occasions (e.g., an international congress) when editors and others (managers, authors, etc.) can directly exchange views, develop consensus approaches and solutions, and seek agreement on how to resolve authorship issues. Open dialogue is healthy, and it is essential for scientific integrity to be protected so that younger scientists can confidently follow the lead of their predecessors.

Authorship↗
PubMed2004

Redundant publications in scientific ophthalmologic journals: the tip of the iceberg?

OBJECTIVE: The number of scientific publications is often used to measure scientific achievement. This practice can motivate unethical conduct, such as redundant or duplicate publications, defined as publication of the same scientific contents in more than 1 journal. The aim of this study was to estimate the amount of redundant publications in ophthalmologic journals. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of published literature. METHODS: We developed an electronic search engine for redundancies to estimate the amount of duplicate publications in scientific journals. When redundancies reached a given degree (matching score), the articles were screened manually based on authors, titles, and abstracts. We applied this method to the 22 433 articles that were published between 1997 and 2000 in 70 ophthalmologic journals indexed by MEDLINE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of duplicate publications with a matching score of 0.6 or more, the number of involved journals, and the number of authors. RESULTS: Redundancies reached a matching score of 0.6 or more in 13 967 pairs of articles. Out of them, a sample of 2210 was reviewed manually. We found 60 redundant articles and estimated that 1.39% of the publications were redundant. Thirty-two journals and an estimate of 1092 authors were involved. In 5% of cases, the scientific conclusions were modified. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the restrictive selection process, the impracticability of detecting all redundant publications, and the estimated amount of duplicates increases with lower matching scores, we regard our estimate to be the tip of the iceberg. Duplicate publications have several negative impacts, but neither peer reviewers nor editors can protect their journal from them completely. Several deterrents for duplicate publications are possible, but as long as publications remain the central requirement for academic advancement, a solution seems unlikely. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of all those who care about objective research and evidence-based medicine to address this problem-not only in ophthalmology.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2003

To the editor.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Authorship↗