Article Text
Abstract
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.
- duplicate publication
- redundant publication
- publication ethics
- copyright
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Lessons from a case of overlapping publications
- Improving biomedical journals’ ethical policies: the case of research misconduct
- Sixth version of the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals”: lots of ethics, some new recommendations for manuscript preparation
- Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey
- Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008
- Plagiarism in research: a survey of African medical journals
- Research misconduct and redundant publication
- Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors
- Duplicate publication, redundant publication, and disclosure of closely related publications
- Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: the GPP2 guidelines