REDUNDANT PUBLICATION: SURVEY OF JOURNAL EDITORS AND AUTHORS
Deborah Barnes,1 Veronica Yank,1 Lisa Bero,1 and Drummond Rennie1,2
1Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 1338 Sutter St, 11th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94109, USA; 1JAMA, Chicago, IL, USA
Objective: To examine the perspectives of journal editors and authors on redundant publication.
Design: A pretested survey was mailed to the senior editor and 1 randomly selected author from clinical journals in the Abridged Index Medicus (n=99). Editors and authors were asked whether publication of manuscripts that overlap in various ways was justified and about journal review practices and policies. Consensus was defined as 67% or greater agreement within each group.
Results: Fifty-two percent of editors and 49% of authors responded to the first mailing. There was consensus in both groups that publication of most types of overlapping articles was unacceptable; however, publication of 2 articles with overlapping data was considered more justifiable if their conclusions differed. In strong disagreement with editors, authors felt it was justifiable to publish segmented articles, and to publish 2 similar articles if 1 appeared in a non-peer-reviewed symposium proceeding. Forty-one percent of authors had notified an editor that a manuscript under their review overlapped with previously published work. On average, editors rejected 1 in 200 manuscripts due to substantial redundancy and found 1 in 500 papers to be redundant after publication. Forty-four percent of editors stated their journals did not publish a definition of redundant publication. Data related to reasons why redundant publication occurs and how it should be addressed will also be presented.
Conclusions: Editors and authors should work together to develop explicit guidelines that will clarify when it is or is not justified to publish manuscripts that overlap in varying ways.
Return to Session Information
