Redudant publication

1. A Presentation
on
Topic: “Redundant Publications”
Presented by:
Varun Kumar - 2250941031
Akshay Sharma – 2250941033
Panshul Sharma – PHDPHM22088
Priya Thakur - 2250941034
1
Chitkara College of Pharmacy, Chitkara University, Rajpura, Punjab

2. Presentation Road Map
2
1. Introduction and definition of redundant publication
2. Salami slicing (why, Exception, how to avoid)
3. Methods of Identification of RP/DP
4. Case Study
5. Four Scenarios, Wastage of Resources, How to avoid Duplication publication.
6. Effect of Redundant Publication, penalties, Impact on literature and future
research.
7. Acceptablilty and consequences of redundability
8. Do’s and Dont’s and Study of policies
9. Conclusion
10.References

3. Introduction
3
Redundant Publication:
 It is publishing essentially the same manuscript more then once, with
perhaps a few changes in the wording or emphasis. Publishing multiple
reports from a single very large project may be justified when each report
addresses an important and distinct question and data do not overlap
despite the fact that there may be authors and patients in common.
(Angell and Relman 1989).
 As per COPE Guidelines “Redundant publication occurs when two or
more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis,
data, discussion points, or conclusions.”
(https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf )

4. Introduction
4
Action required as per Guidelines on Good Publication Practices by
COPE:
 Published studies do not need to be repeated unless further confirmation is
required.
 Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings
does not preclude subsequent submission for publication, but full
disclosure should be made at the time of submission.
 Re-publication of a paper in another language is acceptable, provided that
there is full and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of
submission.
 At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related
papers, even if in a different language, and similar papers in press.

5. Decision tree for identification of RP/DP
5
Figure 1: Decision Tree for identification of Redundancy in publication w.r.t.
Systemic reviews. (von Elm, Poglia et al. 2004)

6. Explanations to Decision tree for
identification of RP
6
 A pattern 1A duplicate was a reproduction of an already published article
using an identical sample and outcomes. 1B are similar to 1A duplicates.
However, 2 or more main articles were assembled to produce yet another
article.
 Pattern 2 duplicates had the highest proportion of unclear cross-references
(25%), a high proportion of nonpharmaceutical sponsorship (38%), and
the lowest annual citation rate (median, 1.1).

7.  Pattern 3A and 3B duplicates were about increasing or decreasing trial size.
Pattern 3A consisted of expanded articles that were written when new data
were added to a preliminary article.
 Pattern 4- Duplicates, both samples and outcomes were different from the
main article. Confirmation of duplication was only possible through contact
with the original authors.
7

8. Introduction
8
Salami slicing:
 Salami publication can be roughly defined as a publication of two or
more articles derived from a single study. It describes the practice of
dividing data from a single study into several publications, especially
when this is inappropriate and done to boost the author’s publications
rather than to present the research in the clearest possible way.
 Articles of such type report on data collected from a single study split into
several segments just large enough to gain reasonable results and
conclusions, also known as “minimal publishable unit”. (Supak Smolcić
2013)

9. Suspected Salami Publications
9
 The manuscripts suspected of being salami publications often report on
identical or similar (Supak Smolcić 2013)
1. Sample size,
2. Hypothesis,
3. Research methodology
4. Results
5. Very often have the same authors

10.  Career distortion
 Harm to Science
 Unethical practice
 Distortion of the literature
 Create repetition
10
Why Salami Slicing is harmful?

11. Salami slicing Exception
 In some cases where the original data set is extremely large eg. A
population based study
 When the data set takes years to collect and analyse, the authors have
justifiable and legitimate grounds to report the research in ,ore than one
paper.
 If a major research project is so extensive that involves several research
groups across disciplines, then it is justified that there are multiple
publications to convey the overall impact of the research from a research
that studies the impact of a drug, biochemical mechanism, side effects of
the drug on different animal models, effect of the clinical trials.
11

12. How to avoid salami slicing
 One conduct study should be reported in one article.
 A second manuscript based on already publish data should:
A. properly reference the previously published article
B. emphasize all new knowledge added in the second manuscript
C. Not repeat any of the data presented in the previous article
D. beside citing the original article clearly declare that it is a part of an
already published study.
E. give a detail explanation to the journals editor on all above mentioned
points because transparency is crucial
 Never use the same control group for more than one study. Each control
group must be representative to the tested group of single study
12

13. Study of journals policies
13
• In a study conducted by Ding, Nguyen et al. 2019, wherein a total of 209
journals in the field of health sciences were sampled and their policies
were investigated.
• 18% of journals did not have any policies on either practice,
• 33% only referred to a generic guideline or checklist without explicit
mention about duplicate and salami publication,
• 36% included policies on duplicate publication.
• Only 13% included policies on both duplicate and salami publication.
(Ding, Nguyen et al. 2019)

14. Case Study
14

15. Case Study
15

16. Case Study
16
• Transesophageal Echocardiography in the Diagnosis of Traumatic
Rupture of the Aorta (Smith, Cassidy et al. 1995)
• Notice of Redundant Publication: Transesophageal Echocardiography in
the Diagnosis of Traumatic Rupture of the Aorta. (Young, Joynt et al.
1995).
• Authors statement: “We wish to acknowledge substantial redundancy of patients in our
1995 Journal study of 93 patients with suspected aortic injury.” Seventy-six of these patients, 8 of whom
had positive results on transesophageal echocardiography, had been included in a study of 160 patients
with the same condition published in the Journal of Trauma in 1994. The 1994 study also included many
patients described one year earlier in our initial report of the successful use of transesophageal
echocardiography to diagnose thoracic aortic injury.3 Although we cited the 1993 report in our article in
the Journal, we neglected to cite the larger 1994 study2 and failed to inform you that that study had been
accepted for publication. We sincerely apologize for any confusion about the total number of patients
studied and any duplication of data.

17. Published articles on Redundant
Publications
17
• This editorial discusses about
avoiding redundant or
duplicate publication.
• This also briefs about
Knowledge of publishing
norms, laws, and ethics can
enable authors to prevent
such problems.
• remain enthusiastic about
publishing findings that are
important for advancing
nursing knowledge.

18. Four Scenarios
Four scenarios illustrate how authors’ dilemmas can lead to redundant
publication:
(a) a new graduate publishing papers from a dissertation;
(b) a researcher reporting on a longitudinal program of study;
(c) an author writing in different languages;
(d) an author writing for different audiences.
18

19. Wastage of Resources
 Waste time and the resources of journals/publications, editors, reviewers,
readers, libraries and e-database.
 Needless expansion of the body of published literature/findings.
 Wastage of paper and other writing resources.
 Wastage of journals/publication space and to create confusion among the
gentle readers/scholars.
 Wastage of readers time and resources to find, read and retaining the
already published material when they could use that time to read new and
updated research materials.
19

20. Steps to Avoid Duplicate Publication
20
 Cite all related papers, including those submitted but not yet accepted;
 Keep track of copyrights to all work.
 Be clear in submitting a manuscript what new information it contains;
Understand what conditions all authors listed on a manuscript endorse in
giving permission to publish a manuscript;
 Give preference to publishing a potentially “classic” and comprehensive
article instead of dissecting results into minimally publishable pieces;
 Challenge criteria for promotion that indicate greater emphasis on
quantity than quality of publications (Supak Smolcić 2013).

21. Effects of Redundant Publication
21
 Multiple published studies on a treatment may be combined through the
statistical techniques of meta-analysis. It will skew the findings in a
similar way to double counting patients in a study. (Wager 2015)
 Such publication represents a waste of resources and research funds.
 No benefit to readers if it appears in a second journal.
 This is unfair and an attempt to falsely inflate academic record.
 Serious publication misconduct.
 Breaches copyright and may attract legal proceedings.

22. Impact on Literature base and Future
Research
 Overemphasized significance of content/finding through repetitive
publication.
 Distorts findings and confounds scientific communication by dividing
rather than combining closely related data from a single group.
 Interferes with meta-analysis by experimental numbers.
22

23. Acceptability and consequences of
Redundability
 Brief abstracts in conference proceedings.
 News media reports.
 Reports distributed to narrow audiences.
 Communication into two different languages with clear cross-references to
reach a larger audience.
 Reaching different audiences or end users.
 Too large studies to publish in a single phase/article.
 Two competing submissions by co-workers disagree with the analysis and
interpretation of the study/findings.
 Editors of different journals simultanously or jointly publishing an article in
agreement with dosing so in general public interest.
 Manuscripts from different groups of authors who have analyzed the same
data.
23

24. Penalties
24
 If redundancy is recognized before publication, manuscripts to be
rejected.
 If redundant articles have already been published, the visible penalties are
publication of a notice of duplicate publication in both journals,
notification of the authors’ employers, and notation in indexes such as
PubMed.
 A written statement about the redundancy to be published with the notice
of duplicate publication.
 In extreme cases, the redundant articles might be retracted, even after
publication.

25. Dos & Dont’s for Authors
 Do not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal.
 Get a written consent from your co-authors .
 Inform the first general editors asking about the paper withdrawal.
 Do not submit unless you get a formal notification from the first journal
editor regarding the paper withrawal .
 Submit this notificatio to the second journal.
 Disclose the details of each paper.
 Inform both the editors that you have a similar paper under review at
another journal.
 Enclose the copies of both papers along with your submission.
25

26. Conclusion
26
 The researchers should focus on the quality of publication not quantity .
 Salami slicing increase the number of publications however might only end up in
sabotaging research career at later stage.
 The author should understand that publishing full project research will have greater
chance of publication.
 The push for academic advancement in medicine may result in redundant
publications that erode the quality of literature.
 UGC rules promoting for salami slicing.

27. References
1. Savjani
27

28. 28