Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg?

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>]

Another article on content duplication identifying multiple forms of
duplication and recommending another form of review (beyond standard peer
review) Abstract from Science Direct.  � 

Moshe Schein MD and Ramesh Paladugu MD 
Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg? 
Surgery Volume 129, Issue 6 , June 2001, Pages 655-661

>From the Department of Surgery, New York Methodist Hospital and Cornell
University Medical College, New York � Available online 8 May 2002. �

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 previous 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 publicationsnext term 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 previous�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 previous� 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 St! ates and
abroad.Redundant publications must be recognized not as a mer e nuisance
but as a real threat to the quality and intellectual impact of surgical
publishing. (Surgery 2001;129:655-61.)