潜在的重复发表

在一份报告发表后，该国卫生部在两个地点开展了一项试点研究，以检验筛查x型感染的可行性和可接受性。试点研究由一家全国性机构协调进行。从一开始就同意，该机构将主导分析数据，协调任何出版物，主要出版物的产出将涉及站点和该机构。同意这一点的那次会议没有作记录。试验性研究数据于2002年4月提交给《A》杂志，由联合网站/国家机构共同撰写(该机构为第一作者)。草案和最终提交的版本都得到了两个站点和国家机构的批准。数据以两篇论文(1和2)的形式提交。第一篇是关于研究的方法学和可接受性，第二篇是关于阳性病例的患病率和评估。就在这些论文提交给期刊A时，1号网站告诉国家机构，他们在2002年3月向期刊B提交了自己的数据(论文3)。期刊A拒绝了这两篇网站/国家机构的联合论文，它们在2002年6月中旬提交给了期刊B。2002年6月下旬，期刊B的编辑与联合网站/国家机构论文(1和2)的第一作者进行了交谈，随后要求论文3的作者撤回他们的论文:他们在2002年7月初撤回了论文。编辑特别提到了跨网站的问题，以及第三篇论文似乎包含了与一篇网站/国家机构联合论文相似的数据。这两篇联合网站/国家机构论文于2002年10月被Journal B接受，并于2003年2月发表。 The site 1 authors then submitted paper 3 (virtually unchanged) to Journal C, where it was accepted October 2002 and published in January 2003. In February 2003 the editor of Journal B was contacted by a reader because of concerns about apparent overlap between one of the two papers in Journal B and paper 3 in Journal C. The editor felt the suggestion—that there was duplicate publication—was correct. The editor asked for three independent opinions (in confidence) from colleagues in the specialty. One of these was Journal B’s ombudsman. All three felt there was significant overlap between paper 2 in Journal B and paper 3 in Journal C. They also pointed out that neither of the papers in Journal B nor paper 3 in Journal C cited each other. The three papers had published literally days apart. The lead author is an overlapping author but the papers’ authorships are mostly driven by the site that the data come from. The editor of Journal B contacted the editor of Journal C as well as the corresponding authors of both the Journal B and C papers. It was difficult to contact the editor of journal C who was handing over to a new editor imminently, and he initially disagreed with the view that there was duplicate publication. Apparently, the authors of the site 1 paper told the editor of Journal C that they had withdrawn their paper from Journal B and were submitting a “different” paper to Journal C. A copy of the version withdrawn from Journal B was sent to the editor of Journal C: the withdrawn and published papers are virtually identical. The corresponding author of the joint site/national agency papers published in Journal B was contacted and provided a full and detailed account of events, backed up by copies of emails. He was unable to explain why—when all authors knew of the plan for the joint submission to Journals A then B, and had from an early stage seen drafts—paper 3 had been submitted to Journal B (ahead of the joint site/national agency paper) or to Journal C (when the joint site/national agency papers were under review with Journal B). The corresponding author of paper 3 published in Journal C was contacted. This author did not reply, but a response was received from two other authors on behalf of all the authors at site 1. This stated: 1. The authors felt that the emphasis and message in the two papers were different and there was not “significant duplication”. 2. They mentioned at the time their paper was submitted to Journal C they did not know the citation for the papers in Journal B. 3. They added that the editor of Journal C knew that there were other papers due to be published in Journal B. 4. They stated that “the publication of two different papers in two different journals with different readerships on “x” screening must surely be beneficial if the basic messages reach more readers. ” 5. Finally, they stated that “We are more than aware of the ethical considerations, as several of our members have sat on LREC and national agency ethics committees. ” The editors are concerned that the duplicate publication will skew data on the screening of x condition and that there is now a situation of dual quoting of data. What should the editor of Journal B do next?