Duplicate publication: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.5.2) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Multiple submission is not plagiarism, but it is today often viewed as academic misbehavior<ref name=Wager/>{{rp|93, 129}} because it can skew [[meta-analysis|meta-analyses]] and [[review article]]s<ref name=Wager>Elizabeth Wager. ''Getting Research Published: An A to Z of Publication Strategy''. Radcliffe Publishing, 2010</ref>{{rp|110}} and can distort [[citation index]]es and [[citation impact]] by [[gaming the system]] to a degree. It was not always looked upon as harshly, as it began centuries ago and, besides the negative motive of vanity which has always been possible, it also had a legitimate motive in reaching readerships of various journals and books that were at real risk of not otherwise overlapping. This was a print-only era before modern [[discoverability]] via the internet and [[search engine technology|digital search]] and before [[systematic review]]s, [[meta-analyses]], and citation indexes existed, and despite a few rudimentary [[journal club]]s, it was likely for readers who subscribed to journals in one city, region, or specialty to have only sporadic contact with journals from other places or specialties. Thus redundant publication could serve a valid purpose analogous to the way that various newspapers in different cities and countries often report news items from elsewhere, ensuring that people in many places receive them despite that they do not read multiple periodicals from many other places. However, as discoverability increased in the 20th century and the aforementioned concerns arose, critical views of redundant publication, beyond merely reproaching vanity, took shape. A formalization of the policy of disallowing duplicate publications was given by [[Franz J. Ingelfinger]], the editor of ''[[The New England Journal of Medicine]]'', in 1969. He coined the [[Ingelfinger rule]] term banning republications in the journal. Most journals follow this policy today. The ''[[BMJ]]'', for example, requires copies of any previous work with more than 10% overlap of a submission to be submitted before approving a work for publication.<ref name=Wager/> |
Multiple submission is not plagiarism, but it is today often viewed as academic misbehavior<ref name=Wager/>{{rp|93, 129}} because it can skew [[meta-analysis|meta-analyses]] and [[review article]]s<ref name=Wager>Elizabeth Wager. ''Getting Research Published: An A to Z of Publication Strategy''. Radcliffe Publishing, 2010</ref>{{rp|110}} and can distort [[citation index]]es and [[citation impact]] by [[gaming the system]] to a degree. It was not always looked upon as harshly, as it began centuries ago and, besides the negative motive of vanity which has always been possible, it also had a legitimate motive in reaching readerships of various journals and books that were at real risk of not otherwise overlapping. This was a print-only era before modern [[discoverability]] via the internet and [[search engine technology|digital search]] and before [[systematic review]]s, [[meta-analyses]], and citation indexes existed, and despite a few rudimentary [[journal club]]s, it was likely for readers who subscribed to journals in one city, region, or specialty to have only sporadic contact with journals from other places or specialties. Thus redundant publication could serve a valid purpose analogous to the way that various newspapers in different cities and countries often report news items from elsewhere, ensuring that people in many places receive them despite that they do not read multiple periodicals from many other places. However, as discoverability increased in the 20th century and the aforementioned concerns arose, critical views of redundant publication, beyond merely reproaching vanity, took shape. A formalization of the policy of disallowing duplicate publications was given by [[Franz J. Ingelfinger]], the editor of ''[[The New England Journal of Medicine]]'', in 1969. He coined the [[Ingelfinger rule]] term banning republications in the journal. Most journals follow this policy today. The ''[[BMJ]]'', for example, requires copies of any previous work with more than 10% overlap of a submission to be submitted before approving a work for publication.<ref name=Wager/> |
||
With the advancement of the internet, there are now several tools available to aid in the detection of [[plagiarism]] and multiple publications within biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers in Dr. [[Harold Garner]]'s laboratory at [[University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas]] is [http://dejavu.vbi.vt.edu/dejavu Déjà Vu], an open-access database containing several thousand instances of duplicate publication. |
With the advancement of the internet, there are now several tools available to aid in the detection of [[plagiarism]] and multiple publications within biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers in Dr. [[Harold Garner]]'s laboratory at [[University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas]] is [https://web.archive.org/web/20140722061546/http://dejavu.vbi.vt.edu/dejavu/ Déjà Vu], an open-access database containing several thousand instances of duplicate publication. |
||
Journals sometimes choose to republish seminal articles, whether from their own past volumes, from other journals, or both. Republication serves the goal of bringing important information to new readerships, which makes it analogous to some instances of duplicate publication on that score. However, it is different from duplicate publication in the respect that there is no element of merely gaming the system of citation impact. Republished articles are clearly labeled as such, allowing them to be recognized as such in [[citation analysis]]. |
Journals sometimes choose to republish seminal articles, whether from their own past volumes, from other journals, or both. Republication serves the goal of bringing important information to new readerships, which makes it analogous to some instances of duplicate publication on that score. However, it is different from duplicate publication in the respect that there is no element of merely gaming the system of citation impact. Republished articles are clearly labeled as such, allowing them to be recognized as such in [[citation analysis]]. |
||
Revision as of 22:44, 14 September 2017
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2016) |
Duplicate publication, multiple publication, or redundant publication refers to publishing the same intellectual material more than once, by the author or publisher. It does not refer to the unauthorized republication by someone else, which constitutes plagiarism, copyright violation, or both.
Multiple submission is not plagiarism, but it is today often viewed as academic misbehavior[1]: 93, 129 because it can skew meta-analyses and review articles[1]: 110 and can distort citation indexes and citation impact by gaming the system to a degree. It was not always looked upon as harshly, as it began centuries ago and, besides the negative motive of vanity which has always been possible, it also had a legitimate motive in reaching readerships of various journals and books that were at real risk of not otherwise overlapping. This was a print-only era before modern discoverability via the internet and digital search and before systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and citation indexes existed, and despite a few rudimentary journal clubs, it was likely for readers who subscribed to journals in one city, region, or specialty to have only sporadic contact with journals from other places or specialties. Thus redundant publication could serve a valid purpose analogous to the way that various newspapers in different cities and countries often report news items from elsewhere, ensuring that people in many places receive them despite that they do not read multiple periodicals from many other places. However, as discoverability increased in the 20th century and the aforementioned concerns arose, critical views of redundant publication, beyond merely reproaching vanity, took shape. A formalization of the policy of disallowing duplicate publications was given by Franz J. Ingelfinger, the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in 1969. He coined the Ingelfinger rule term banning republications in the journal. Most journals follow this policy today. The BMJ, for example, requires copies of any previous work with more than 10% overlap of a submission to be submitted before approving a work for publication.[1]
With the advancement of the internet, there are now several tools available to aid in the detection of plagiarism and multiple publications within biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers in Dr. Harold Garner's laboratory at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is Déjà Vu, an open-access database containing several thousand instances of duplicate publication.
Journals sometimes choose to republish seminal articles, whether from their own past volumes, from other journals, or both. Republication serves the goal of bringing important information to new readerships, which makes it analogous to some instances of duplicate publication on that score. However, it is different from duplicate publication in the respect that there is no element of merely gaming the system of citation impact. Republished articles are clearly labeled as such, allowing them to be recognized as such in citation analysis.