Consensus statement on submission and publication of manuscripts

doi:10.1067/msy.2001.114550

Surgery

Volume 129, Issue 6, June 2001, Pages 662-663

https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2001.114550 Get rights and content

Abstract

Surgery 2001;129:662-3.

Section snippets

Duplicate submission and publication

In general, if a manuscript has been peer-reviewed and published, any subsequent publication is duplication. Exceptions to this general rule may be:

1.
Prior publication in meeting program abstract booklets or expanded abstracts such as those published by the Surgical Forum of the American College of Surgeons or Transplantation Proceedings. However, these must be referenced in the final manuscript.
2.
A manuscript that extends an original database (a good rule might be expansion by 50% or more) or that

Fraudulent publication

The following activities are examples of fraudulent publication practices:

1.
Willful and knowing submissions of false data for publication.
2.
Submission of data from sources not the author's (or authors') own.
3.
Falsely certifying that the submitted work is original and has not been submitted to, or accepted by, another journal.
4.
Sponsoring or vouching for a manuscript containing data over which the sponsor has no control or knowledge.
5.
Allowing one's name to appear as an author without having contributed

References (0)

Cited by (16)

Duplicate publications and related problems in published papers on oral and maxillofacial surgery
2015, British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Citation Excerpt :
All 3 did not reference their index articles, but reported the same or extremely similar results using the same subjects, and came to the same conclusions. The motivation for publishing duplicate material is unknown, but may be related to the structure of the current academic system in which academic advancement, which is often related to the number of peer-reviewed publications, can also offer secondary monetary rewards such as a higher income or increased funding for research.2 However, such a system does not take into account other important factors such as the quality of research.5
As duplicate publication is unethical, our aim was to find out how common it is among published papers on oral and maxillofacial surgery. We used PubMed to identify index articles published in 2010 in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and the European Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, and searched for possible duplicate publications from 2008 to 2012 using the first or second and last authors’ names. Suspected duplicates were categorised into “non-duplicate” (no overlap), “duplicate” (identical results and conclusions), or “salami-sliced” publications (part of the index article repeated or continued). Of the 589 index articles, 17 (3%) had some form of duplication, but specifically, we found 3 duplicate, and 15 salami-sliced publications. Most redundant articles originated from China (n = 4), followed by Italy, Japan, and Germany (3 from each) and the United States and Denmark (2 each). Of the 18 redundant publications, 9 did not reference the related index article. Duplicate material is still being published, and salami-slicing is relatively common among publications on oral and maxillofacial surgery. Further research is required into the extent and impact of this finding.
Prevalence of covert duplicate publications in budd-chiari syndrome articles in China: A systematic analysis
2013, American Journal of Medicine
Covert duplicate publication is unquestionably unethical and problematic. Approximately 3000 articles describing Budd-Chiari syndrome in China have been published. However, no study has yet explored the prevalence of covert duplicate publications among these articles.
We retrieved original articles regarding Budd-Chiari syndrome in China via the PubMed, Chinese Scientific and Technological Journal (VIP), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The prevalence of covert duplicate publications was evaluated across publication dates, institutional grades, and academic levels of the journals.
Overall, 1914 articles were included in our analysis. These articles were produced by 632 institutions and published in 463 journals. Overall, 10% (184/1914) of the articles, 10% (62/632) of the institutions, and 26% (119/463) of the journals were involved in covert duplicate publications. A decreasing trend in the prevalence of covert duplicate publications over time was observed. The prevalence of covert duplicate publications was significantly higher in tertiary hospitals than in primary hospitals or unclassified institutions (10.0% vs 3.8%, P = .038), but the prevalence was similar between tertiary and secondary hospitals (10.0% vs 9.3%, P = .72). The prevalence of covert duplicate publications was significantly higher in Science Citation Index journals than in Chinese Academic Core journals (23.9% vs 10.3%, P = .001) and other journals (23.9% vs 8.3%, P < .001).
Covert duplicate publications are relatively common among articles on Budd-Chiari syndrome in China. The high prevalence of covert duplicate publication in Science Citation Index journals should remind English-language journal editors to verify whether the articles submitted by Chinese researchers have been published in Chinese-language journals.
How to avoid research misconduct - Recommendations for surgeons
2008, Journal de Chirurgie
Toute recherche qui ne respecte pas dans le détail les standards scientifiques et éthiques de la recherche biomédicale, intentionnellement ou non, est considérée comme une non-conformité (définie par le « Royal College of Physicians » d’Edinburgh). Les mauvaises pratiques de la recherche biomédicale se retrouvent à différents niveaux : fabrication de résultats, falsification, plagiat, présentation ou analyse équivoques des données, défaut de l’approbation d’un comité d’éthique de la recherche ou de consentement éclairé des participants, contribution irrégulière des auteurs, publication redondante ou conflits d’intérêt non déclaré. Celles-ci, pouvant faire douter de l’intégrité des soins prodigués, risquent de nuire à la relation médecin-patient et à la confiance du public dans la recherche biomédicale, et détériorent la qualité de la littérature médicale.
Pour l’heure, ces écueils de la recherche en chirurgie n’ont pas été rapportés, et la littérature chirurgicale française n’a pas encore produit de recommandations pour améliorer la qualité des recherches et des publications. Dans le souci de sensibiliser la communauté chirurgicale aux bonnes pratiques éthiques et à l’intégrité scientifique, nous proposons une revue des mauvaises pratiques de la recherche et soumettons, à titre préventif, ces considérations aux chirurgiens.
P. Pitak-Arnnop, T. Schouman, J.-C. Bertrand, C. Hervé
Research misconduct is defined by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh as any behaviour by a researcher, whether intentional or not, that fails to scrupulously respect high scientific and ethical standards. Various types of research misconduct include fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, problematic data presentation or analysis, failure to obtain ethical approval by a research ethics committee or to obtain the subject’s informed consent, inappropriate claims of authorship, duplicated publication, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. These can result in patient injury, deterioration of the patient-physician relationship, loss of public trust in biomedical research, as well as pollution/degradation of the medical literature. Surgical research malfeasance has been underreported, and no practical guidelines for good research and publication have appeared to date in French surgical journals. In an attempt to uphold the scientific integrity of our profession, we discuss research misconduct and emphasise preventive measures and considerations for surgeons.
Plagiarism*: Avoiding the peril in scientific writing
2008, Chest
Citation Excerpt :
Duplicate/redundant publication is most certainly improper when done deceptively. Most agree that if the editors, peer reviewers, and end users of the information are informed of the overlap, appropriate decisions can be made.6789 However, covert submission and publication of previously published material are deceiving to those reading and applying the information contained in the article.
A tale of three papers
2006, Surgery
Duplicate publications: redundancy in plastic surgery literature
2006, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
The practice of duplicate publication has been condemned widely in the scientific community and several studies have been conducted to establish the level of the problem in various surgical fields.
A retrospective review of original articles from the British Journal of Plastic Surgery and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery during 2000 was conducted, using Medline (PubMed). A total of 431 abstracts were screened, from which 27 index articles related to 33 ‘suspected redundant’ publications. Further evaluation was carried out by comparing the full text versions of these articles and assigning a grade of non-dual, dual, potentially dual and ‘salami-slicing’. Only four suspect articles were confirmed as having some degree of redundancy, and these related to three index articles (3/431, <1%). The incidence of duplication in plastic surgery literature seems to be much lower compared to other surgical specialties, providing reassurance for reviewers, editors and readers of these journals.

View all citing articles on Scopus

^*: This document is not covered by copyright. It may be copied or reprinted without permission.

View full text

Special ArticlesConsensus statement on submission and publication of manuscripts*

Abstract

Section snippets

Duplicate submission and publication

Fraudulent publication

Special Articles
Consensus statement on submission and publication of manuscripts*