Elsevier

Surgery

Volume 129, Issue 6, June 2001, Pages 655-661
Surgery

Special Articles
Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg?*,**

https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2001.114549Get rights and content

Abstract

Background. A redundant publication is one which duplicates previous, simultaneous, or future publications by the same author or group or, alternatively, could have been combined with the latter into one paper. As there is no information about the extent of this problem in the surgical literature, we set out to assess the incidence, spectrum, and salient characteristics of redundant publications in 3 leading surgical journals. Methods. Original articles (excluding reviews, editorials, abstracts, and letters) published during 1998 in the journals Surgery, The British Journal of Surgery, and Archives of Surgery were searched by using the on-line search engine PUBMED. Each original article was scrutinized to identify redundancy by combining the names of the first, second, and last authors with a few key words from the title. Papers were defined as “suspected” redundant publications if they were found to address the same topic as the “index” article and shared some or most of the elements of methodology, results, or conclusions. The full versions of all suspected papers were retrieved and compared with the index articles. A grading system was developed to define several types of redundant publications: A. “dual”; B. “potentially dual”; C. “salami-slicing.” Results. A total of 660 articles were screened. There were 92 index articles (14%) leading to 147 suspected papers found in other journals, representing some potential form of a redundant publication. The vast majority of suspected papers were published within approximately a year of the index paper and were not cited by the latter. Most (69%) of the suspected papers were also published in surgical journals. Only 12 (8.1%) appeared in, or originated from, a “local-foreign” journal. Twenty (13.6%) of the suspected papers met the criteria for dual publications, 50 (34%) for potentially dual publications, and 77 (52.4%) were considered products of salami-slicing. Conclusions. Almost 1 in every 6 original articles published in leading surgical journals represents some form of redundancy. Current on-line search technology provides an effective tool for identifying and tracing such publications, but it is not used routinely as part of the peer review process. Redundancies occur in several well-defined patterns; the phenomenon is widespread, and it cuts across the entire spectrum of surgeons in the United States and abroad. Redundant publications must be recognized not as a mere nuisance but as a real threat to the quality and intellectual impact of surgical publishing. (Surgery 2001;129:655-61.)

Section snippets

Methods

Original articles (excluding review articles, invited contributions, editorials, extended abstracts, abstracts, letters, and published abstracts of congress-proceedings) published during 1998 in Surgery, The British Journal of Surgery, and Archives of Surgery were searched by using the on-line search engine PUBMED on the Internet (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/medline.html).

Each original article was searched to identify redundant articles by combining the names of the first, second, and

Results

A total of 660 original papers from the 3 journals were screened by using the aforementioned criteria. We identified 92 index articles (14%) leading to suspected papers representing some form of a redundant publication (Table III).The countries of origin of the index papers are listed in Table III, with the United States of America (n = 31), United Kingdom (n = 11), and Japan (n = 11) leading the list.

The 660 screened papers led to 147 suspected papers. On the average, the 3 journals combined

Discussion

In the absence of clear and uniformly accepted definitions of what is a redundant publication, the results of this study—using our own definitions—are to be considered preliminary. To maximize objectivity, we excluded from the analysis any published material that was solicited or interpreted as for educational redistribution (such as editorials, leading articles, review articles, or proceedings of a congress). Focusing thus only on original publications, our study shows that a significant

Conclusion

This study shows that the incidence of redundant or frankly duplicate publishing is higher than is generally appreciated, with about 1 in every 6 original articles published in leading surgical journals potentially representing some form of redundancy. The consequent compromise of the quality of surgical publications should behoove editors, reviewers, writers, and readers to cooperate in creating effective filter mechanisms to screen for and attempt to eliminate redundant publications.

Acknowledgements

We thank Asher Hirshberg, MD, for his invaluable input.

References (31)

  • S Lowry et al.

    Duplicate publication

    BMJ

    (1992)
  • MJ Farthing

    Research misconduct

    Gut

    (1997)
  • CW Hanke et al.

    Dual publication and manipulation of the editorial process

    Arch Dermatol

    (1990)
  • DM Bier et al.

    Duplicate publication and related problems

    Arch Dis Child

    (1990)
  • M Susser et al.

    Prior, duplicate, repetitive, fragmented, and redundant publication and editorial decisions

    Am J Public Health

    (1993)
  • Cited by (0)

    *

    Reprint requests: Moshe Schein, MD, Department of Surgery, New York Methodist Hospital, 516 Sixth St, Brooklyn, NY 11215.

    **

    Surgery 2001;129:655-61.

    View full text