Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print April 10, 2008, 10.1148/radiol.2473070969
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2473070969v1
247/3/836    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arrivé, L.
Right arrow Articles by Tubiana, J.-M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Arrivé, L.
Right arrow Articles by Tubiana, J.-M.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
(Radiology 2008;247:836-840.)
© RSNA, 2008

Special Report

Redundant Publication in the Journal Radiology1

Lionel Arrivé, MD, Maïté Lewin, MD, PhD, Pascale Dono, RA, Laurence Monnier-Cholley, MD, Christine Hoeffel, MD, and Jean-Michel Tubiana, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris et Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint-Antoine, 75012 Paris, France. Received June 5, 2007; revision requested August 6; revision received September 13; accepted October 12; final version accepted January 3, 2008. Address correspondence to L.A. (e-mail: lionel.arrive{at}sat.ap-hop-paris.fr).


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 
Purpose: To retrospectively quantify the incidence of redundant publication in the journal Radiology and to compare the present study findings with those published for other journals and medical specialties.

Materials and Methods: Two readers estimated the incidence of the redundant publication of original articles in Radiology in the year 2001. Original research articles published in 2001 were analyzed by searching MEDLINE on the PubMed server to identify articles that may have represented a duplication of the original Radiology article. MEDLINE was searched between January 1999 and December 2003 by using the surname and initial(s) of the first author. Potentially redundant articles were identified after similarities in titles and abstracts were analyzed. The full versions of all potentially redundant articles and of the corresponding index articles were then retrieved from the library. The potentially redundant article was then compared with the index article. Criteria for redundant publication were as follows: Compared with the index article, the potentially duplicate article had (a) a similar hypothesis, (b) a similar number of subjects, (c) similar results, (d) at least one author in common, and (e) no or little new information.

Results: In 2001, 362 original research articles were published in Radiology. Two instances of redundant publication were found among these articles, and both were considered to be partially redundant publications due to series expansions (ie, increased numbers of study subjects) of 50% and 52%.

Conclusion: Redundant publication appears to be less frequent in Radiology than in the other journals and specialties for which redundant publication information has been reported.

© RSNA, 2008


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 
According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, "redundant (or duplicate) publication is publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published in print or electronic media" (1). Redundant publication has ethical conduct implications and diminishes the cost-effective use of resources. Redundant publication of original research is particularly problematic, because in meta-analyses it can result in an inappropriate weighting of the study results and thus bias the evidence (1,2). For instance, Tramer et al (2) concluded that the inclusion of redundant data in a meta-analysis led to a 23% overestimation of the treatment effectiveness of an antiemetic agent. Questions of redundant publication can also arise when the same manuscript is being considered at the same time for publication in two journals (1).

The incidence of redundant publication has been measured in different medical specialties (3–10). Schein and Paladugu (3) evaluated redundant publication in three leading general surgery journals and found that approximately one in six "original" research articles represented some form of dual publication. Varied incidences of redundant publication have been demonstrated in other studies (5,8,9).

According to the Council of Science Editors (11), the following are characteristics of redundant publication in at least two published works: (a) At least one author is common to all reports (if there are no common authors, it is more likely to be plagiarism than redundant publication), (b) the subject or study populations are often the same or similar, (c) the study methods are typically identical or nearly identical, and (d) the results and the interpretation of results vary little, if at all. The Council of Science Editors (11) definition of redundant publication is included in the publication information for authors of articles published in Radiology. In addition to this definition, Radiology also includes as redundant publication "(a) any work that has been previously published in a language other than English, unless the editor agrees to publish and so identifies the material when it appears in Radiology, and (b) previously published abstracts substantially greater than 300 words" (http://www.rsna.org/publications/rad/PIA/assets/Radiology_PIA.pdf). The purpose of our study was to retrospectively quantify the incidence of redundant publication in Radiology and to compare our present study findings with those published for other journals and medical specialties.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 
Literature Search Period
Two observers with 19 and 16 years experience in publishing and in reviewing imaging literature (L.A. and P.D., respectively), with a specific interest in literature searches (12–14), analyzed original research articles (excluding review articles, invited contributions, editorials, technical letters, and technical development manuscripts [because they did not include a structured abstract]) published in Radiology in 2001 by searching MEDLINE on the PubMed server (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/) to identify those articles that may have represented a potential redundant publication of the original Radiology article. MEDLINE was searched between January 1999 and December 2003 by using the surname and initial(s) of the first author. We restricted the search to a 5-year period because previous studies have revealed that nearly all redundant articles are published within 2 years of the index article (7,15).

Data Collection
Each of the two observers performed the entire search procedure. The first author of the index article was searched for and cross-referenced. If more than 50 references to the author were identified, the search was repeated by using the first author's name and an appropriate keyword from the article title. Potential redundancies were identified after similarities in article titles and, if necessary, in abstracts were analyzed. After the abstracts were reviewed, articles were judged to be potentially redundant if they were found to address the same topic as the index article and to share similar study methods, results, and conclusions. Discrepancies were settled in consensus. The full versions of all potentially redundant articles and of the corresponding index articles were then retrieved from the library. The potentially redundant articles were then compared with the index articles. Original articles published in English or another language were considered. We recorded each of the index article authors; the number of articles published by the author as the first, second, or other author in Radiology; and the number of articles published with the author as the first, second, or other author in other MEDLINE-indexed journals. The same two observers reviewed the full article and documented the presence of duplicate content. Discrepancies, if present, were settled in consensus.

The criteria for redundant publication of the Editorial Policy Committee of the Council of Science Editors (11) and from a joint statement on duplicate publication established by editors of cardiothoracic journals (16) were used: Compared with the index article, the potentially redundant work has (a) a similar hypothesis (similar purpose or study objectives described in Introduction section); (b) similar numbers of subjects, animals, and/or experiments described in the Materials and Methods section; (c) identical or nearly identical study methods as described in the Materials and Methods section; (d) similar results reported in the Results section; (e) at least one author in common (if there are no common authors, it is more likely to be plagiarism); and (f) no or little new information in terms of the results and the result interpretations made available, as reported in the Results and Discussion sections.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 
Author Search
In 2001, 362 original research articles were published in Radiology. When we searched for first authors of index articles published between 1999 and 2003, we found fewer than 50 references to 286 authors and more than 50 references to 76 authors. The 286 authors for whom fewer than 50 references were found had published a total of 5010 articles (17.5 articles per author) between January 1999 and December 2003 and 902 articles (3.1 articles per author) in Radiology during this period. We were not able to estimate the number of articles published between 1999 and 2003 for the 76 authors for whom more than 50 references were found because the search was performed by combining the first author's name and an appropriate keyword from the title of the article.

Redundant Publication
Two articles published in Radiology in 2001 were considered cases of redundant publication. A full article was published in Radiology 7 months after a research letter of about 800 words and with the same authors, purpose, and methods and similar results was published in another MEDLINE-indexed journal. The first work was neither cited nor referenced in the second (Radiology) article. This article was considered a partial redundant publication because a series expansion (ie, increased number of subjects) of 52% was observed between the two articles.

The second full article published in Radiology was followed by the publication of a work describing a subgroup of the index series in another MEDLINE-indexed journal 7 months later. The authors of the index article published in Radiology were also authors of the second work, and the study methods were identical. The purpose and results in the subgroup series were similar. The first (Radiology) article was neither cited nor referenced in the second work. This case was also considered a partial redundant publication because a 50% increase in the number of subjects in the subgroup series was observed.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 
Redundant publication is the publication of an article whose content overlaps substantially with that of a work written by the same authors and already published in print or electronic media (1). The notion that redundant publication is problematic is not new. In 1969, Franz Ingelfinger, then Editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, defined the Ingelfinger rule: A manuscript can be considered for publication only if the content contained therein has not been submitted or reported elsewhere (17). In 1981, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors established the criteria for redundant publication that are followed by many journals worldwide and are included in the regularly published Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (1).

Schein and Paladugu (3) evaluated redundant publication, screening 660 articles published in three leading general surgery journals, and found that approximately one in six "original" research articles represented some form of duality. Rosenthal et al (7) found that of the 492 otolaryngology articles that they reviewed, 42 (8.5%) represented some form of duplication. The majority of the redundant articles (73.8%) were published within 1 year of the index article, and nearly all (92.9%) of them were published within 2 years of the index article (7). Gwilym et al (4) found that of 343 "original" articles published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in 1999, 26 (7.6%) had some degree of redundancy. In a larger study of the prevalence of redundant publication in the otolaryngology and head and neck surgery literature, 1000 authors of 24 353 articles were searched for duplications (6). The investigators found that 201 authors had published 443 redundant articles.

Gøtzsche (15) reported that a search of 31 trial studies involving comparisons of nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs yielded 75 articles with redundant publication and that the majority of these articles were published in the English language and within 1 year of each other—but without subsequent reference to the original publication. Huston and Moher (18) attempted to analyze the source data of articles on the antipsychotic agent risperidone and concluded that data from a single North American multicenter trial had yielded six articles with redundant publication. Tramer et al (2) reported that an analysis of nine trials on the effectiveness of the antiemetic agent ondansetron yielded 23 articles with duplications, without cross-referencing. They estimated that the inclusion of redundant data in that meta-analysis had led to a 23% overestimation of the treatment effectiveness. However, with use of a properly performed systematic review of the literature, one can detect and delete redundant publications by using a simple method such as that used in our study.

On the other hand, investigators in other studies have observed much lower incidences of duplicate publication (5,8,9). Durani (8) found that only four of 431 original plastic surgery articles had some degree of redundancy. Chennagiri et al (9) found a duplication rate of only 2% after analyzing 600 articles published in the Journal of Hand Surgery in 1999 and 2000. In another study (5), a redundant publication detection algorithm was applied for the first time to search for redundancies among 22 433 articles published in 70 ophthalmologic journals between 1997 and 2000. A sample of 2210 article pairs in which redundancies had reached a given degree was reviewed manually. The study investigators found that 1.39% of the articles were redundant (5).

To our knowledge, the incidence of redundant publication in the field of radiology had never been systematically studied. Gilbert and Denison (19) assessed the incidence of redundant publication in five English-language radiology journals. Redundant publication was reported infrequently. One case of redundant publication in Radiology during a 5-year period was reported (20). In the American Journal of Roentgenology, three cases of certain redundant publication from January 1996 to March 1999 (21–23) and two other cases of questionable redundancy (24,25) were reported. Three cases of redundant publication in Clinical Radiology also have been reported. Two cases of redundant publication in the British Journal of Radiology over a 10-year period were reported (19). One case of redundant publication in European Radiology was discovered before the article was published (19). Without systematic investigation, cases of redundant publication may go undetected.

In our study, we found only two instances of redundant publication after analyzing 362 articles that were published in Radiology in 2001, and we considered both of these to be cases of partial redundant publication due to series expansions of 50% and 52%. Minor variations in the reported incidence might be due to variances in the study design, sampling error, and/or definition of article duplication. However, redundant publication of original articles appears to be less frequent in Radiology than in other journals or specialties for which redundant publication information has been reported. We do not have a definitive explanation for this discrepancy. We assume that the majority of articles published in Radiology are high-quality contributions relative to specialized fields of radiology. In addition, authors may consider Radiology, which we view as the top journal in the field of diagnostic imaging, the best vehicle in which to publish their results. Finally, if the majority of articles published in Radiology are co-authored by experienced authors, then fewer duplications can be expected because these individuals should be aware of the problems related to redundant publication.

Issues of research integrity—specifically, redundant publication—are clearly addressed in the publication information for authors of articles published in Radiology. These issues have been regularly addressed in the imaging literature, including journals such as the American Journal of Roentgenology, Radiology (26), Investigative Radiology (27), and Clinical Radiology (19). The specific issue of redundant publication was addressed frequently in the American Journal of Roentgenology by the former editor in chief of that publication, Lee F. Rogers, MD (28–30). Duplicate publication has also been reported on in prestigious nonimaging medical journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association (31).

There were limitations to our study. We searched for published articles in a single database—MEDLINE—by using a single search engine—PubMed. However, Berry et al reported that their MEDLINE search for articles on medical imaging was nearly exhaustive (32). Nevertheless, we did not consider articles published in journals that were not indexed in MEDLINE. The use of other databases such as EMBASE might be of value. However, EMBASE currently is not available free of charge. Finally, there is the question of whether using the Google search engine might yield more redundant publications in the electronic media. To our knowledge, such a search strategy has not been reported. Finally, the main advantage of using a search strategy restricted to the MEDLINE database only, as in the present study, is that it allows comparisons with a majority of the studies in which the same search strategy was used (3,4,6–8). Although a search technique based on authors' last names has been used in this type of study previously, to our knowledge, the efficiency of this method was not assessed (14,33). Search errors may occur owing to the misspelling of first authors' last names. Errors may also occur if the first author of the index article is not an author of the redundant article; however, such instances have been shown to be uncommon (5,10). When we identified more than 50 references, we repeated the search by using both the author's name and an appropriate keyword from the article title. This truncated method has been used in several studies of redundant publication (3,4,8,9).

We excluded Technical Development articles because they did not include a structured abstract. We thought that this would make the evaluation of possible duplication more difficult. The period covered in this study was 5 years. It has been shown that nearly all redundant articles are published within 2 years of the index article (7,15). However, we cannot exclude the possibility that we missed some articles that were published more than 2 years before or after publication of the index article. In addition, our study design was based on similarities in article titles, and this may have caused some duplications to remain undetected. Finally, even though efforts were made to be consistent, the judgments were subjective and made by only two observers.

Despite all of the limitations outlined, we believe that our findings are valid and reflect the behavior of authors who publish articles in Radiology and that redundant publication is less frequent in Radiology than in other journals or specialties for which redundant publication information has been reported.


   ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
References
 


   FOOTNOTES
 
Author contributions: Guarantor of integrity of entire study, L.A.; study concepts/study design or data acquisition or data analysis/interpretation, all authors; manuscript drafting or manuscript revision for important intellectual content, all authors; manuscript final version approval, all authors; literature research, all authors; and manuscript editing, all authors

Authors stated no financial relationship to disclose.

See also the editorial by Bankier et al in this issue.


   References
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 

  1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Web site. http://www.icmje.org/. Updated February 2006. Accessed January 15, 2007.
  2. Tramer MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ 1997;315(7109):635–640.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Schein M, Paladugu R. Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg? Surgery 2001;129:655–661.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Gwilym SE, Swan MC, Giele H. One in 13 ‘original’ articles in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery are duplicate or fragmented publication. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2004;86:743–745.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Mojon-Azzi SM, Jiang X, Wagner U, Mojon DS. Redundant publications in scientific ophthalmologic journals: the tip of the iceberg? Ophthalmology 2004;111:863–866.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Bailey BJ. Duplicate publication in the field of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;126:211–216.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Rosenthal EL, Masdon JL, Buckman C, Hawn M. Duplicate publications in the otolaryngology literature. Laryngoscope 2003;113:772–774.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Durani P. Duplicate publications: redundancy in plastic surgery literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006;59:975–977.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Chennagiri RJ, Critchley P, Giele H. Duplicate publication in the Journal of Hand Surgery. J Hand Surg [Br] 2004;29:625–628.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Bloemenkamp DG, Walvoort HC, Hart W, Overbeke AJ. Duplicate publication of articles in the Dutch Journal of Medicine in 1996 [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1999;143:2150–2153.[Medline]
  11. The Editorial Policy Committee of the Council of Science Editors. Redundant publication. CBE Views 1996;19:76–77.
  12. Arrivé L, Renard R, Carrat F, et al. A scale of methodologic quality for clinical studies of radiologic tests. Radiology 2000;217:69–74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Arrivé L, Dono P, Lewin M, Dahan H, Monnier-Cholley L, Tubiana JM. Taux de publication des travaux originaux présentés oralement lors des journées françaises de radiologie 1996. J Radiol 2001;82(12 pt 1):1719–1722.[Medline]
  14. Arrivé L, Boelle PY, Dono P, Lewin M, Monnier-Cholley L, Tubiana JM. Subsequent publication of orally presented original studies within 5 years after 1995 RSNA scientific assembly. Radiology 2004;232:101–106.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Gøtzsche PC. Multiple publication of reports of drug trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1989;36:429–432.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Cho BK, Rosenfeldt F, Turina MI, et al. Joint statement on redundant (duplicate) publication by the editors of the undersigned cardiothoracic journals. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:663.[Free Full Text]
  17. Relman AS. The Ingelfinger rule. N Engl J Med 1981;305:824–826.[Medline]
  18. Huston P, Moher D. Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research. Lancet 1996;347:1024–1026.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Gilbert FJ, Denison AR. Research misconduct. Clin Radiol 2003;58:499–504.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Correction: notice of redundant publication. Radiology 2001;219:300.[Free Full Text]
  21. Rogers LF. Notice of duplicate publication, AJR 1997;168:207–212. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:855–856.
  22. Rogers LF. Notice of duplicate publication, AJR 1998;171:1643–1644. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:856.[Medline]
  23. Rogers LF. Notice of duplicate publication, AJR 1999;172:35–37. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:872–873.[Free Full Text]
  24. Rogers LF. Duplicate publication or not? case 1. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1789–1790.[Free Full Text]
  25. Rogers LF. Duplicate publication or not? case 2. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1790–1791.[Free Full Text]
  26. Friedman PJ. Standards for authorship and publication in academic radiology. Radiology 1993;189:33–34.[Free Full Text]
  27. Friedman PJ. Standards for authorship and publication in academic radiology. Invest Radiol 1993;28:879–881.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Rogers LF. Duplicate publications: it's not so much the duplicity as it is the deceit. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1–2.[Free Full Text]
  29. Rogers LF. Protocol for investigating alleged duplicate publications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:2.
  30. Rogers LF. In any language. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1487.[Free Full Text]
  31. DeAngelis CD. Duplicate publication, multiple problems. JAMA 2004;292:1745–1746.[Free Full Text]
  32. Berry E, Kelly S, Hutton J, Harris KM, Smith MA. Identifying studies for systematic reviews: an example from medical imaging. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:668–672.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Miguel-Dasit A, Marti-Bonmati L, Aleixandre R, Sanfeliu P, Bautista D. Publication of material presented at radiologic meetings: authors' country and international collaboration. Radiology 2006;239:521–528.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Related Article

Redundant Publications in Radiology: Shades of Gray in a Seemingly Black-and-White Issue
Alexander A. Bankier, Deborah Levine, Robert G. Sheiman, Michael H. Lev, and Herbert Y. Kressel
Radiology 2008 247: 605-607. [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
A. A. Bankier, D. Levine, R. G. Sheiman, M. H. Lev, and H. Y. Kressel
Redundant Publications in Radiology: Shades of Gray in a Seemingly Black-and-White Issue
Radiology, June 1, 2008; 247(3): 605 - 607.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2473070969v1
247/3/836    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arrivé, L.
Right arrow Articles by Tubiana, J.-M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Arrivé, L.
Right arrow Articles by Tubiana, J.-M.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE