Related Experiment Videos
Duplicate publications: redundancy in plastic surgery literature.
1University of Manchester, Manchester Incubator Building, 48 Grafton Street, Manchester M13 9XX, UK. pdurani@fastmail.fm
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery : JPRAS
|August 22, 2006
Summary
Duplicate publication is a concern in science. This study found a very low incidence (<1%) of duplicate or redundant publications in plastic surgery journals, suggesting lower rates than in other surgical fields.
Area of Science:
- Medical Ethics
- Scientific Publishing
- Plastic Surgery
Background:
- Duplicate publication is widely condemned in the scientific community.
- Previous studies have assessed the prevalence of duplicate publication in various surgical fields.
Purpose of the Study:
- To determine the incidence of duplicate and redundant publications in plastic surgery literature.
- To compare the prevalence of duplication in plastic surgery with other surgical specialties.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective review of original articles published in 2000 in the British Journal of Plastic Surgery and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
- Screening of 431 abstracts using Medline (PubMed).
- Full-text evaluation of 27 index articles suspected of redundancy, categorizing them as non-dual, dual, potentially dual, or 'salami-slicing'.
Main Results:
- Out of 431 articles reviewed, 33 were suspected of redundancy.
- Only four suspect articles were confirmed to have some degree of redundancy.
- This confirmed redundancy related to three index articles, representing an incidence of less than 1% (3/431).
Conclusions:
- The incidence of duplicate and redundant publications in plastic surgery literature is significantly lower than in other surgical specialties.
- This finding offers reassurance to reviewers, editors, and readers regarding the integrity of plastic surgery publications.
- The study highlights the importance of vigilant screening for publication ethics in scientific journals.