Article info
PDFOriginal Article
Consensus and contention regarding redundant publications in clinical research: cross-sectional survey of editors and authors
- Correspondence to: V Yank, 5 Alma Street, apt 2, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA; vyank{at}itsa.ucsf.edu
Citation
Consensus and contention regarding redundant publications in clinical research: cross-sectional survey of editors and authors
Publication history
- Accepted June 20, 2002
- Revised May 6, 2002
- First published April 1, 2003.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Copyright 2003 by the Journal of Medical Ethics
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