Repetitive publication: a waste that must stop.

Lock, Simon

doi:10.1136/bmj.288.6418.661

Cited by 35 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…95 Multiple publication of the same data in different journals has been condemned mainly for wasting journal space and editors', referees' and readers' time. [96][97][98][99][100] On the other hand, it is arguable that publication of the same data in different ways may be helpful in the dissemination of important research results, providing any previous or parallel publications have been explicitly referenced. The unacceptable "repetitive" publication needs to be distinguished from the necessary "parallel" publication.…”

Section: Duplicate (Multiple) Publicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication and related biases.

Song¹,

Eastwood²,

Gilbody³

et al. 2000

Health Technology Assessment

403

275

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA website (see overleaf). NHS R&D HTA Programme T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Methodology Group and funded as project number 95/12/01. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. Criteria for inclusion in the HTA monograph series Reports are published in the HTA monograph series if (1) they have resulted from work either prioritised by the Standing Group on Health Technology, or otherwise commissioned for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors.

show abstract

Section: Duplicate (Multiple) Publicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication and related biases.

Song¹,

Eastwood²,

Gilbody³

et al. 2000

Health Technology Assessment

403

275

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Authors should not quote these so-called "parallel" articles in their CVs as separate pieces of work. 11 The intention of deceiving is the central aspect of any publication misconduct. However, in novices, it might occasionally derive from simple ignorance, especially regarding redundant publications.…”

Section: Redundant Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 Authors should not quote these so-called “parallel” articles in their CVs as separate pieces of work. 11…”

Section: Redundant Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pitfalls and Misconducts in Medical Writing

Lazarides

Gougoudi

Παπάνας

2019

The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of medical research is the quest for scientific truth, as well as the communication of new knowledge to the medical society through publication of novel results. Journals publishing these results rely on the trust that all persons involved (authors, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers) remain honest, following the rules and ethics of scientific integrity. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and a wide spectrum of pitfalls and misconducts may occur, ranging from less serious violations of ethical rules to most serious ones. In ascending order of severity, these include borderline questionable practices (HARKing [Hypothesizing After the Results are Known] and hyping), redundant publications, authorship misconducts, plagiarism, and all types of fraud (data falsification or fabrication). Awareness of all these fraudulent practices is essential to mitigate misconduct in academic writing.

show abstract

“…This special form of plagiarism is defined as the publication of a copyright material with the addition of new, unpublished data. [ 9 ] Hence, this is a form of unethical behavior in science, where part or parts of already published article are published again. There are several logics for the unethical nature of this form of publishing.…”

Section: Types Of Ethical Malpractice In Biomedical Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What pharmacy practitioners need to know about ethics in scientific publishing

Žunić¹,

Masic²

2014

J Res Pharm Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pharmacy practice is an ever-changing science and profession. We are witnessing many advancement of pharmacy technology, drug-related information and applied clinical pharmacy literature, which influence our every day's life. Thus, new knowledge generated by research and clinical experience widen the knowledge; change the understanding of drugs and their application in therapeutics and every days life. Thus, policy makers, pharmacists, clinicians and researchers must evaluate and use the information existing in the literature to implement in their healthcare delivery. This paper is prepared for pharmacy researchers and pharmacy students and analyzes the major principles of ethical conduct in general science and also closely related topics on ghost authorship, conflict of interest, assigning co-authorship, redundant/repetitive and duplicate publication. Furthermore, the paper provides an insight into fabrication and falsification of data, as the most common form of scientific fraud. Scientific misconduct goes against everything that normal scientific method wants to reach for and pharmacy practitioners as one the first line available health care professionals all round the world should be enough aware of its importance and details when they want to evaluate the medical and pharmaceutical literature and deliver unbiased and ethically published knowledge of drugs both for the research or during consultations for patients care.

show abstract

Repetitive publication: a waste that must stop.

Cited by 35 publications

References 1 publication

Publication and related biases.

Publication and related biases.

Pitfalls and Misconducts in Medical Writing

What pharmacy practitioners need to know about ethics in scientific publishing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About