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

Abstract

We discuss prior publication and redundancy in contemporary science in the context of changing perceptions of originality in the communication of research results. These perceptions have been changing in the publication realm, particularly in the last 15 years. Presenting a brief overview of the literature, we address some of the conflicts that are likely to arise between authors and editors. We illustrate our approach with conference presentations that are later published as journal articles and focus on a recent retraction of an article that had been previously published as a conference proceedings. Although we do not make definitive pronouncements on the matter-as many concepts are evolving-we do argue that conference papers that contain sufficient details for others to attempt a replication and are indexed in scientific databases such as PubMed, challenge some currently held assumptions of prior publication and originality in the sciences. Our view is that these important issues are in need of further clarification and harmonization within the science publishing community. This need is more evident when we consider current notions of research integrity when it comes to communication to peers. Revisiting long-standing views about what constitutes prior publication and developing a clearer set of guidelines for authors and editors to follow should reduce conflicts in the research environment, which already exerts considerable pressure, especially on newcomers in academia. However, while clearer guidelines are timely, developing them is only part of the challenge. The present times seem to call for deeper changes in the research and publication systems.

Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review

“…Of note is that more than half the sources in this category were published between 2010 and 2016. , 1981;Goldblatt, 1984;1990-19991 2.4 Samuelson, 1994200016 39.0 Berlin, 2009Bretag & Mahmud, 2009;Clarke, 2009;Collberg & Kobourov, 2005;Collberg et al 2003a;Dellavalle, Banks, & Ellis, 2007;Errami & Garner, 2008;Green, 2005;Hartle et al, 2009;Loui, 2002;Noè, & Batten, 2006;Roig, 2006Roig, , 2008Scanlon, 2007;Sikes;Wen, & Gao, 200721 51.2 Andreescu, 2013Anesa, 2013;Bruton, 2014;de Vasconcelos & Roig, 2015b;Garcia Romero et al, 2014;Gilliver, 2012;Habibzadeh & Shashok, 2011;Helgesson & Eriksson, 2015;Hicks & Berg, 2014;O'Brien Louch, 2016;Robinson, 2014;Roig, 2010Roig, , 2011Roig, , 2015Roig, , 2016Shashok, 2011;Suarez et al, 2012;Šupak-Smolčić, 2013;Šupak-Smolčić & Bilić-Zulle, 2013;…”

“Reinventing the wheel”: reflections on a recurrent phenomenon in the history of neurosurgery

“…In fact, it seems undeniable that such an easy access to scientific resources through online databases generates an additional degree of responsibility regarding proper recognition of prior publications, ultimately functioning as a potent driving force against plagiarism and toward scientific originality. 10 Furthermore, it seems clear that neurosurgeons younger than 40 years belong to a quite different generation. We operate with surgical instruments that we did not have to develop; we confidently treat neurosurgical diseases whose complex pathophysiology we did not have to fastidiously research; we confidently base our daily decision-making on reliable information about the natural history of neurological diseases affecting patients whom we did not have to rigorously follow in order to observe such evolution.…”

The retrospective (im)moralization of self-plagiarism: Power interests in the social construction of new norms for publishing

“…An example would be the widely publicized case of renowned economist Bruno Frey who, among other purported instances, published virtually the same critique of academic publishing in two different journals within 2 years (Storbeck, 2011). De Vasconcelos and Roig (2015) explore another example of duplicate publication in which a conference proceedings article was significantly expanded upon and then later published in a refereed journal. The article was subsequently retracted under the broad umbrella of plagiarism (as opposed to the more specific self-plagiarism).…”