In this edition of the British Orthoptic Journal the notice

to contributors has been amended. The sentence ‘Papers

are considered for publication on the understanding that

they are not being submitted elsewhere at the same time’

has been extended to address the problem of duplicate

publication and now appears under ‘Terms of submission’

Firth, A.Y.

English

White Rose Research Online

This is a repository copy of Editorial stance on duplicate and salami publication.White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/620/Article:Firth, A.Y. (2002) Editorial stance on duplicate and salami publication. British Orthoptic Journal, 2002 (59). pp. 1-2. ISSN 0068-2314 eprints@whiterose.ac.ukhttps://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Editorial: Editorial stance on duplicate and salami publicationALISON Y. FIRTHIn this edition of the British Orthoptic Journal the noticeto contributors has been amended. The sentence ‘Papersare considered for publication on the understanding thatthey are not being submitted elsewhere at the same time’has been extended to address the problem of duplicatepublication and now appears under ‘Terms of submis-sion’.Duplicate publication is the ‘publication in two ormore scientific journals of seemingly identical or closelyrelated articles of similar content’ and is considered asunethical.1 Stewart and Feder2 raised the issue of‘republication’ in 1987, and since then duplicatepublication has been discussed in over 70 editorials,numerous letters to journals and a few articles.However, to my knowledge, apart from a noticeconcerning a duplicate publication,3 it does not appearto have been addressed in journals directly related to ourspecialty.One particular concern that arises from duplicatepublication is when a meta-analysis* is undertaken.Where the dual publication is not recognised, inclusionof both papers in the analysis will result in excessiveweight of the study.4 It also leads to confusion inreporting of numbers of rare conditions, not to mentionthe wasted time of referees and the expense of the reviewprocess and actual printing costs.5 It can suggest that acertain study or finding has more importance than itdoes.As Rogers6 eloquently puts it, ‘previously publishedmeans previously published in any language, previouslypublished anywhere in the world, previously publishedin part or in whole, previously published in print or onelectronic media, previously published regardless ofwhether that publication is listed in the Index Medicus,and previously published with or without the require-ment for signing a transfer of copyright.’ I might add, toclarify further, this includes papers that have appeared intransactions of meetings and is irrespective of whetherthe publication has been peer reviewed.A statement by the International Committee ofMedical Journal Editors7 addresses the issue of publica-tion in the same or another language in other countries.The Committee feels that this can be of benefit providedcertain conditions are adhered to. These are:1. ‘The editors of both journals concerned are fullyinformed and approve; the editor concerned with thesecondary publication must have a photocopy, reprint,or manuscript of the primary version.2. The priority of the primary publication is respected bya publication interval of at least 1 week (unlessspecifically negotiated otherwise by both editors).3. The paper for secondary publication is intended for adifferent group of readers; an abbreviated versioncould be sufficient.4. The secondary version reflects faithfully the data andinterpretations of the primary version.5. A footnote on the title page of the secondary versioninforms readers, peers, and documenting agencies thatthe paper has been published in whole or in part andstates the primary reference. A suitable footnote mightread as follows: “This article is based on a study firstreported in the (title of journal, with full reference).’’ ’It seems a common misconception that transactions ofmeetings are exempt from all laws of copyright or ethicalissues surrounding dual publication. It may be annoyingto see ‘Paper published elsewhere’ in the transactions of ameeting, but this is a correct procedure to avoid duplicatepublication when the work has been submitted oraccepted for publication elsewhere. Perhaps some confu-sion has arisen from published abstracts. In this situation,where only an abstract has been published, the paper maybe submitted in full. It is, however, good practice toinform the editor of the existence of the abstract.A common justification put forward by authors is thata second publication is necessary to reach a differentaudience, but this is not felt to be justified, particularly inview of today’s improved communications and theinternet; nor is it scientifically warranted.8When duplicate publications are recognised differentapproaches are taken. The journal may publish a notice,it may request a letter of apology from the author(s) forpublication or it may ban the author(s) from publishingin the journal for a given period of time.Another ethical problem in scientific conduct is that ofsalami-slicing. This is ‘the practice of cutting up a bodyof data to yield several papers where one complete paperwould be optimal’.9 This may add to the number ofpublications by an author but reduces the quality.Exceptions here are large clinical or epidemiologicalstudies where simultaneous publication of results is notpossible, or where different and important questionsneed to be addressed separately.10 Indeed Bennie andLim11 state that few megatrials can afford to investigateonly one hypothesis at a time. However, instances ofclear misconduct do arise. In one editorial12 a paper isdiscussed where the authors had been asked for furtherinformation on a given aspect. This was not included intheir resubmission but the paper was accepted. However,it later came to light that the information wasconcurrently available and published in another journal.No cross-references were given and the content of thearticles was otherwise similar.Br Orthopt J 2002; 59: 1—2* A secondary statistical analysis performed on the outcomes of independentstudies.In this same area are ‘meat extender’ articles wherepatients are added to an earlier identical series with thesame results and conclusions.5When submitting a manuscript where there is anyquestion of duplication or salami-slicing, authors shoulddraw the attention of the Editor to previous publications,submissions and/or abstracts. Clear reference should bemade to any previous or expected future publications inthe article submitted and copies supplied to the Editor.References1. Rogers LF. Duplicate publications: it’s not so much the duplicityas it is the deceit. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 172: 1—2.2. Stewart WW, Feder N. The integrity of scientific literature.Nature 1987; 325: 207—214.3. Anonymous. Correction. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 115: 842.4. Longhurst JG, Weiss EL. Duplicate publication. Br J Psychiatry1998; 172: 277.5. Lock S. Publication: duplicate, salami, meat extender — allredundant. BMJ 1989; 298: 1203—1204.6. Rogers LF. In any language. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174:1487.7. Lundberg GD. Statement by the International Committee ofMedical Journal Editors on duplicate and redundant publica-tion. JAMA 1993; 270: 2495.8. Sarr MG, Warshaw AL. Duplicate publication/duplicate submis-sion — unfortunately still a problem. Surgery 2001; 129:653—654.9. Laitman CJ, Rikkers LF. Politics in surgical publishing. Br J Surg2000; 87: 1284—1286.10. Abraham P. Duplicate and salami publications. J Postgrad Med2000; 46: 67—69.11. Bennie MJ, Lim CW. Salami publication. BMJ 1992; 304: 1314.12. Britton J, Knox AJ. Duplicate publication, redundant publication,and disclosure of closely related publications. Thorax 1999;54: 378.2 EditorialBr Orthopt J 2002; 59

Editorial stance on duplicate and salami publication

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/620/1/firthay7.pdf

Editorial stance on duplicate and salami publication

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

White Rose Research Online