SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Duplicate Publication”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1990

Notice of inadvertent duplicate publication.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[Simultaneous publication, fragmented publication (or "salami") and duplicate publication, problems to avoid for the good of all].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗

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↗

PubMed1993

[Duplicate publication of original manuscripts in and from the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde].

OBJECTIVE: To determine the numbers of correct (meeting the Vancouver rules) and incorrect duplicate publications of original articles (OA) in the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. DESIGN: Retrospective bibliometric study followed by interviews. SETTING: The journal's editorial office. METHOD: Of the first and second author of 172 OA (all 95 OA from the first half of 1990 and all 77 OA from the first half of 1992) all biomedical publications of the same purport published in 1990-1992 were looked up. Subsequently the authors were approached by telephone to find out the background of these duplicate publications. RESULTS: Of 2 OA the corresponding articles were not found. Of the remaining 94 OA from the first half of 1990, II (12%) proved to have been published again without this fact being mentioned in a footnote as required by the rules (for which omission the journals were responsible in 4 and the authors in 7 cases). Of the remaining 76 OA from the first half of 1992, 12 were found to have been published previously, 5 in accordance with and 7 (9%) against the rules. Duplicate publication against the rules was to be attributed to incorrect interpretation of the Vancouver rules by the authors. CONCLUSION: Of the OA in the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd a minimum of 14% are or have already been published elsewhere, 11% without this fact being stated as required by the Vancouver rules.

Bibliometrics↗

PubMed1995