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

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 nonpeer 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.

Prior Publication and Redundancy in Contemporary Science: Are Authors and Editors at the Crossroads?

“…Interestingly, although many journals caution authors against these practices, there seems to be no consensus in the research community as to which forms of selfborrowing should be considered ethical breaches (Roig 2014;Yank and Barnes 2003). As a matter of fact, some of the most well-known definitions of research misconduct do not include any form of self-plagiarism as a type of misconduct (Dahlberg 2007).…”

Education Journal Editors’ Perspectives on Self-Plagiarism

“…In 1981, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors warned authors against "prior and duplicate publication" (Yank and Barnes 2003); prior to this, redundant publication without cross-referencing or disclosure was common (Riis 2001). The first journal article indexed in PubMed withdrawn for duplication appeared in 1990 (Steen et al 2013).…”

“…A recent study by Karabag and Berggren (2012), which focused on journals in economics and management, and research by Wager et al (2009) and Yank and Barnes (2003), which examined science journals and journals in clinical medicine respectively, found wide variances in how journals treat potential self-plagiarism. For example, some journals appear always to retract duplicate publications, while others publish a notice or do nothing at all (Wager and Wiffen 2011;Williams and Wager 2013).…”

Types and Quality of Physical Therapy Research Publications: Has There Been a Change in the Past Decade?

“…21,22 To capture the trends in publication of PT literature, we need a measure of quality that encompasses more than the hierarchy of evidence or bibliometrics, as well as the opinions of leaders in the field. The purpose of our study, therefore, is to describe the types and quality of evidence published in PT journals and to explore the future of those journals.…”