Display options
Cite
Hennessey KK, Williams AR, Afshar K, et al. Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of Urology. Can Urol Assoc J. 2012;6(3):177-80doi: 10.5489/cuaj.11265.
Hennessey, K. K., Williams, A. R., Afshar, K., & Macneily, A. E. (2012). Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of Urology. Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 6(3), 177-80. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.11265
Hennessey, Kiara K, et al. "Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of Urology." Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada vol. 6,3 (2012): 177-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.11265
Hennessey KK, Williams AR, Afshar K, Macneily AE. Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of Urology. Can Urol Assoc J. 2012 Jun;6(3):177-80. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.11265. PMID: 22664627; PMCID: PMC3367011.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Can Urol Assoc J. 2012 Jun;6(3):177-80. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.11265.

Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of Urology.

Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada

Kiara K Hennessey, Aaron R Williams, Kourosh Afshar, Andrew E Macneily

Affiliations

  1. Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

PMID: 22664627 PMCID: PMC3367011 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.11265

Abstract

PURPOSE: : Redundant publications occur when authors publish a partial or complete duplicate of data from an existing manuscript. The push for academic advancement in medicine may result in redundant publications that erode the quality of literature. We sampled the extent of redundancy within the Journal of Urology.

METHODS: : Original articles published in the Journal of Urology in 2006 were reviewed. MEDLINE was used to identify suspected duplicate publications by combining the last names of the first, second and last authors with keywords provided by the article. Results were limited to 2004 to 2008. Two investigators reviewed the suspected duplicate publications and classified them as duplicate, probable duplicate and salami-slicing.

RESULTS: : We screened 723 original articles. Of these original articles, 13 (1.8%) had some form of redundancy. One (0.1%) original article had a duplicate article, 5 (0.7%) original articles had probable duplicates, and 7 (1%) original articles were salami-sliced. The proportion of redundant articles published prior to, and following, their 2006 index article was 5/13 (38.5%) and 7/13 (53.8%), respectively. One duplicate (7.7%) was published in the same month as its index.

CONCLUSION: : Detection of redundant publications is a laborious process for reviewers and editors. This sampling of the Journal of Urology revealed that the duplication rate in this journal is small, but significant. Further assessment of the urological literature is warranted.

References

  1. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jan;37(Database issue):D921-4 - PubMed
  2. Ann Intern Med. 1986 Feb;104(2):261-2 - PubMed
  3. J Urol. 2011 Aug;186(2):369-70 - PubMed
  4. Croat Med J. 2003 Dec;44(6):770-83 - PubMed
  5. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Jul;86(5):743-5 - PubMed
  6. Surgery. 2001 Jun;129(6):655-61 - PubMed
  7. Laryngoscope. 2003 May;113(5):772-4 - PubMed
  8. Ophthalmology. 2004 May;111(5):863-6 - PubMed
  9. N Engl J Med. 1983 Oct 27;309(17):1053-7 - PubMed
  10. Bioinformatics. 2006 Sep 15;22(18):2298-304 - PubMed
  11. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(9):975-7 - PubMed
  12. J Urol. 2009 Aug;182(2):674-8; discussion 678-9 - PubMed
  13. J Hand Surg Br. 2004 Dec;29(6):625-8 - PubMed
  14. Nature. 2008 Jan 24;451(7177):397-9 - PubMed

Publication Types