Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg?

Background. A redundant publication is one which duplicates previous simult aneous, or future publication by the same author or group or, alternatively , could have been combine with the latter into one paper. As there is no in formation about the extent of this problem in the surgical literature, we s et out to assess the incidence, spectrum, and salient characteristics of re dundant publications in 3 leading surgical journals. Methods. Original articles (excluding reviews, editorials, abstracts, and l etters) published during 1998 in the journals of Surgery, The British Journ al of Surgery and Archives of Surgery were searched by using the on-line se arch engine PUBMED. Each original article was scrutinized to identify redun dancy by combining the names of the first, second, and last authors with a few key words from the title. Papers were defined as "suspected" redundant publications if they were found to address the same topic as the "index" ar ticle and shared some or most of the elements of methodology, results, or c onclusions. The full versions of all suspected papers were retrieved and co mpared with the index articles. A grading system was developed to define se veral types of redundant publications: A. "dual" B. "potentially dual"; C. "Salami-slicing. " Results. A total of 660 articles were screened. There were 92 index article s (14%) leading to 147 suspected papers found in other journals, representi ng some potential form of a redundant publication. The vast majority of sus pected papers were published within approximately a year of the index paper and were not cited by the latter. Most (69%) of the suspected papers were also published in surgical journals. Only 12 (8.1%) appeared in, or origina ted from, a "local-foreign" journal. Twenty (13.6%) of the suspected papers met the criteria for dual publications, 50 (34%) for potentially dual publ ications, and 77 (52.4%) were considering products of salami-slicing. Conclusions. Almost 1 in every 6 original articles published in leading sur gical journals represents some form of redundancy. Current on-line search t echnology provides an effective tool for identifying and tracing such publi cations, but it is not used routinely as part of the peer review process. R edundancies occur in sever well-defined patterns; the phenomenon is widespr ead, and it cuts across the entire spectrum of surgeons in the United State s and abroad. Redundant publication must be recognized not as a mere nuisan ce but a real threat to the quality and intellectual impact of surgical pub lishing.