Redundant publications in scientific ophthalmologic journals: The tip of the iceberg?☆
Received 21 February 2003; accepted 2 September 2003.
Abstract
Objective
The number of scientific publications is often used to measure scientific achievement. This practice can motivate unethical conduct, such as redundant or duplicate publications, defined as publication of the same scientific contents in more than 1 journal. The aim of this study was to estimate the amount of redundant publications in ophthalmologic journals.
Design
Retrospective analysis of published literature.
Methods
We developed an electronic search engine for redundancies to estimate the amount of duplicate publications in scientific journals. When redundancies reached a given degree (matching score), the articles were screened manually based on authors, titles, and abstracts. We applied this method to the 22 433 articles that were published between 1997 and 2000 in 70 ophthalmologic journals indexed by MEDLINE.
Main outcome measures
The number of duplicate publications with a matching score of 0.6 or more, the number of involved journals, and the number of authors.
Results
Redundancies reached a matching score of 0.6 or more in 13 967 pairs of articles. Out of them, a sample of 2210 was reviewed manually. We found 60 redundant articles and estimated that 1.39% of the publications were redundant. Thirty-two journals and an estimate of 1092 authors were involved. In 5% of cases, the scientific conclusions were modified.
Conclusions
Because of the restrictive selection process, the impracticability of detecting all redundant publications, and the estimated amount of duplicates increases with lower matching scores, we regard our estimate to be the tip of the iceberg. Duplicate publications have several negative impacts, but neither peer reviewers nor editors can protect their journal from them completely. Several deterrents for duplicate publications are possible, but as long as publications remain the central requirement for academic advancement, a solution seems unlikely. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of all those who care about objective research and evidence-based medicine to address this problem—not only in ophthalmology.
1Research Institute for Management in Health Services at the University of Applied Sciences, St. Gallen, Switzerland
2Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
3Department of Ophthalmology, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen, Switzerland
4Scientific Secretary Swiss Society of Ophthalmology, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen, Switzerland
Correspondence to Daniel S. Mojon, MD, MHSA, Department of Ophthalmology, Kantonsspital, 9007 St. Gallen, Switzerland.
A short correspondence concerning this study entitled “Is Science Plagued by Redundant Publications?” was published in Nature on January 16, 2003.
Sponsored by OPOS-Foundation, St. Gallen, Switzerland. The Foundation had no involvement in the study design, collection of data, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision of submission for publication.
The authors have no financial interest concerning this study.
ABSTRACT