ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2012
Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of Urology.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Legitimate division of large data sets, salami slicing and dual publication, where does a fraud begin?Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2013Article
- Ethics in publishing.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2012Article
- Redundant publication: expect the unexpected.Indian journal of pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose: Redundant publications occur when authors publish a partial or complete duplicate of data from an existing manuscript. The push for academic advancement in medicine may result in redundant publications that erode the quality of literature. We sampled the extent of redundancy within the Journal of Urology.
methods: Original articles published in the Journal of Urology in 2006 were reviewed. MEDLINE was used to identify suspected duplicate publications by combining the last names of the first, second and last authors with keywords provided by the article. Results were limited to 2004 to 2008. Two investigators reviewed the suspected duplicate publications and classified them as duplicate, probable duplicate and salami-slicing.
results: We screened 723 original articles. Of these original articles, 13 (1.8%) had some form of redundancy. One (0.1%) original article had a duplicate article, 5 (0.7%) original articles had probable duplicates, and 7 (1%) original articles were salami-sliced. The proportion of redundant articles published prior to, and following, their 2006 index article was 5/13 (38.5%) and 7/13 (53.8%), respectively. One duplicate (7.7%) was published in the same month as its index.
conclusion: Detection of redundant publications is a laborious process for reviewers and editors. This sampling of the Journal of Urology revealed that the duplication rate in this journal is small, but significant. Further assessment of the urological literature is warranted.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.