Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 135–140 | Cite as

Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity?

  • Tom Jefferson
Comment

Abstract

Redundant publication in biomedical sciences is the presentation of the same information or data set more than once. Forms of redundant publication include “salami slicing”, in which similar text accompanies data presented in disaggregated fashion in different publications and “duplicate or multiple publication” in which identical information is presented with a virtually identical text. Estimates of prevalence of the phenomenon put it at 10 to 25% of published literature. Redundant publication can be considered unethical, or fraudulent, when the author(s) attempt to conceal the existence of duplicate publication from editors and readers. Redundant publication in the area of clinical trials is potentially dangerous as it tends to overestimate the effects of interventions. The scientific community at large and governments should take urgent steps to safeguard the public from the possible effects of fraudulent multiple publications.

Keywords

peer review duplicate publication scientific misconduct redundant publication 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jefferson, T.O., Demicheli, V., Pratt, M., Decks, J., Sassi, F. & MacMillan, A. (1997) The effectiveness of vaccines against Hepatitis B in healthcare workers. In: Gluud, C., Jørgensen, T., Morabito A, Pagliaro L, Poynard T, Sutton R (editors). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Issue 3. Update Software 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crosnier, J., Jungers, P., Courouce, A-N., Laplanche, A., Benhamou, E., Degos, F., Lacour, B., Prunet, P., Cerisier, Y. & Guesry, P. (1981) Randomised placebo-controlled trial of Hepatitis B surface antigen vaccine in French heamodialysis units: I, medical staff. The Lancet; 455–59 (28 February).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huth, E.J. (1986) Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. Annals of Internal Medicine 104:257–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hustu, P, & Moher, D. (1996) Redundancy, disaggregation and the integrity of medical research. Lancet 347:1024–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waldron A. (1992) Is duplicate publishing on the increase? British Medical Journal 304:1029.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lock, S. (1996) Research misconduct: a resume of recent events. In: Lock, S. & Wells, F. (editors). Fraud and misconduct in medical research. Second Edition. BMJ Publishing Group, London, page 22.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tramèr, M.R., Reynolds D.J.M., Moore, R.A. & McQuay, H.J. (1997) Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. British Medical Journal 315:635–40.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lock, S. (1996) Fraud and the editor. In: Lock, S. & Wells, F. (editors). Fraud and misconduct in medical research. Second Edition, BMJ Publishing Group, London, page 244.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lowry, S. & Smit, J. (1992) Duplicate publication. British Medical Journal 304: 999–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Husson, J.M., Bogaievsky, Y., Hvidberg, E., Schwarz J. & Chadha, D. (1996) Fraud in clinical research on medicines in the European Union: facts and proposals. In: Lock, S. & Wells, F. (editors). Fraud and misconduct in medical research. Second Edition. BMJ Publishing Group London, pages 206–225.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riis, P. (1996) Creating a national control system on scientific dishonesty within the health sciences. In: Lock, S. & Wells, F. (editors). Fraud and misconduct in medical research. Second Edition, BMJ Publishing Group, London, pages 114–127.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Jefferson
    • 1
  1. 1.Army Medical Directorate, Ministry of DefenceKeogh Barracks, Ash Vale HantsUK

Personalised recommendations