Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Duplicate Publication”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

Duplicate publication.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗
PubMed2003

Duplicate publications in the otolaryngology literature.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: A duplicate publication duplicates other published work by the same author(s). The purpose of the study was to define the extent of this problem within the otolaryngology literature. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of the literature. METHODS: Original articles published in Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Laryngoscope in 1999 were reviewed using the OVID search engine. Titles and abstracts from English articles written by the same first, second, or last author were analyzed, and suspected publications were evaluated. Duplicate publications were classified as dual (identical data set and conclusions) or suspected dual (nearly identical data set and conclusions) publications. RESULTS: Of the 492 articles evaluated, 40 index articles were identified. These led to a total of 42 (8.5%) duplicate articles of which 27 were classified as dual and 15 as suspected dual publications. Approximately half of the duplicate publications were published by authors in the United States (55%). Duplicate articles usually appeared within 12 months of the each other (74%) and failed to cross-reference the earlier publication (83%). CONCLUSIONS: Journal editors have become aware of an increase in the number of duplicate publications in the medical literature. The incidence of duplicate publications in the otolaryngology literature appears to be similar to that in other specialties.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗
PubMed2002

Duplicate publication in the field of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery.

OBJECTIVE: This study establishes the approximate prevalence and patterns of duplicate publication in the medical literature in the specialty of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: All of the authors and articles published in the American Medical Association Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery were identified and listed for an 8-year period. During this time, 1965 authors published 1082 articles in the Archives, and this same set of authors published a total of almost 50,000 articles during the 12-year period between January 1977 and December 1988. Of the same set of 1965 authors, we picked 1000 at random and found that they had published a total of 24,353 articles. The titles of these articles were then screened for similar titles, and when similarities were noted, the complete articles were obtained when possible and compared for the degree and pattern of duplicate publication. RESULTS: Of the 1000 authors studied, we found that 228 authors had published 938 articles with similar titles. We were able to obtain the full copy of 886 (94%) of the 938 articles in question, which were written by 226 (99%) of the 228 authors. We found that in the case of 25 authors, there was no duplication despite the similar titles, but in the case of 201 (20% of the 1000) authors, 644 articles were published with some degree of duplication (1.8% duplication rate). CONCLUSIONS: The most common duplicate publication involves sequential publication of very similar data and conclusions. Duplicate publications failed to reference prior articles by the same author 32% of the time or referenced the prior articles only partially (11% of the time). Artificial segmentation of a single study into multiple arbitrary segments composed 20% of the duplicate publication. Duplicate publication across different specialties was noted to account for 4% of the instances. Most of the authors duplicated only once or twice, and most duplicators do reference their prior publications. SIGNIFICANCE: Duplicate publication is an example of inappropriate academic conduct. Because it tarnishes the reputation of the duplicating author and represents an unfair practice in terms of displacing the work of others, efforts should continue to educate authors, particularly young academicians, to avoid the practice of duplicate publication.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗
PubMed1995

Duplicate publication in the nursing literature.

The purpose of this study was to identify examples of duplicate publication in the nursing literature and determine what types of duplicate articles are published. From the sample of 642 articles published by 77 authors during a 5-year period, 181 articles were classified as duplicate. Forty-one authors published at least one form of duplicate article. Fifty-nine duplicate articles did not reference the primary article. Duplicate publication itself is not unethical, but duplicate publication without referencing duplicate work is unethical and may violate copyright law.

Authorship↗
PubMed1997

Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of duplicate data on estimates of efficacy. DESIGN: Systematic search for published full reports of randomised controlled trials investigating ondansetron's effect on postoperative emesis. Abstracts were not considered. DATA SOURCES: Eighty four trials (11,980 patients receiving ondansetron) published between 1991 and September 1996. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of duplicated trials and patient data. Estimation of antiemetic efficacy (prevention of emesis) of the most duplicated ondansetron regimen. Comparison between the efficacy of non-duplicated and duplicated data. RESULTS: Data from nine trials had been published in 14 further reports, duplicating data from 3335 patients receiving ondansetron; none used a clear cross reference. Intravenous ondansetron 4 mg versus placebo was investigated in 16 reports not subject to duplicate publication, three reports subject to duplicate publication, and six duplicates of those three reports. The number needed to treat to prevent vomiting within 24 hours was 9.5 (95% confidence interval 6.9 to 15) in the 16 non-duplicated reports and 3.9 (3.3 to 4.8) in the three reports which were duplicated (P < 0.00001). When these 19 were combined the number needed to treat was 6.4 (5.3 to 7.9). When all original and duplicate reports were combined (n = 25) the apparent number needed to treat improved to 4.9 (4.4 to 5.6). CONCLUSIONS: By searching systematically we found 17% of published full reports of randomised trials and 28% of the patient data were duplicated. Trials reporting greater treatment effect were significantly more likely to be duplicated. Inclusion of duplicated data in meta-analysis led to a 23% overestimation of ondansetron's antiemetic efficacy.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed2004

Duplicate publication in the Journal of Hand Surgery.

This study evaluates the extent of duplicate publication in the Hand Surgery literature. A retrospective review of original articles published in the American and the British & European editions of Journal of Hand Surgery during the years 1999 and 2000 was performed using MEDLINE (PUBMED) search engine. Index articles suspected of dual publication were identified by using key words in the title and the names of the first, second and last authors. The full initial text was carefully studied and suspected duplicate articles were classified as dual, potentially dual or fragmented. Six hundred articles were evaluated, of which 25 (4%) index articles were identified with 33 "suspects". Eleven "index" and 15 "suspected" articles were cleared on closer scrutiny. Thus 14 "index" articles (2%) were found to be associated with 18 duplicated articles. Of these, four were classified as dual, five as potentially dual and nine as fragmented. We conclude that although duplicate publication of articles in the Journals of Hand Surgery (American and British/European Volumes) does occur, the incidence in the sample studied is lower than some other surgical journals.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗
PubMed1993

[Duplicate publication of original manuscripts in and from the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde].

OBJECTIVE: To determine the numbers of correct (meeting the Vancouver rules) and incorrect duplicate publications of original articles (OA) in the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. DESIGN: Retrospective bibliometric study followed by interviews. SETTING: The journal's editorial office. METHOD: Of the first and second author of 172 OA (all 95 OA from the first half of 1990 and all 77 OA from the first half of 1992) all biomedical publications of the same purport published in 1990-1992 were looked up. Subsequently the authors were approached by telephone to find out the background of these duplicate publications. RESULTS: Of 2 OA the corresponding articles were not found. Of the remaining 94 OA from the first half of 1990, II (12%) proved to have been published again without this fact being mentioned in a footnote as required by the rules (for which omission the journals were responsible in 4 and the authors in 7 cases). Of the remaining 76 OA from the first half of 1992, 12 were found to have been published previously, 5 in accordance with and 7 (9%) against the rules. Duplicate publication against the rules was to be attributed to incorrect interpretation of the Vancouver rules by the authors. CONCLUSION: Of the OA in the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd a minimum of 14% are or have already been published elsewhere, 11% without this fact being stated as required by the Vancouver rules.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed1999

[Duplicate publication of articles in the Dutch Journal of Medicine in 1996].

OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of undisclosed/disclosed duplicate publications of original articles (OA) in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (NTvG). DESIGN: Retrospective bibliometric study. METHOD: All biomedical articles published in January 1994-June 1998 and written by the first or second author of the 148 OA published in 1996, were compared with the articles in the NTvG at the editorial office of the NTvG. Resemblances in the objective, study design, study population between the different articles were observed. The researchers assessed whether the same article had been published twice or more and whether this was acceptable or redundant (according to the criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). RESULTS: In 1996 the NTvG published 30 (20%) OA which were also published elsewhere. In 23 cases (77%) the article was first published in another scientific journal and in 7 cases (23%) the article was published once again after its appearance in the NTvG. In 20 duplicate articles in the NTvG a footnote with a reference to the first publication was present. In 10 duplicate articles no such footnote could be found. In comparison with a similar study of the years 1990-1992 the number of duplicate publications was the same but the fraction of correctly disclosed duplicate publications had risen from 5/23 (22%) to 16/22 (73%) (p < 0.001).

Bibliometrics↗