通过同一作者在1995 - 2000年之间的370个出版物的PubMed搜索中检查了16篇随机选择的论文。两篇论文几乎相同，仅以介绍性段落和作者名单的形式不同。任何出版物都不承认另一个。另一篇论文报告了一个“曾经发表的案例”，两份后续文件报告了相同的“第二份”案例，而不参考早期发表的纸张。文本再次非常相似。随后期刊A收到了被拒绝的纸张。除了改变作者名单之外，它与在不同日记前两年发表的纸张相同。另一种杂志和介绍的论文也发表在另一个杂志上。在任何英国研究库中都没有，这无法检查。另外两份稿件被提交给J杂志，以一封信的形式，以及第二个完整的研究论文。 The letter was lifted directly from the paper; furthermore one of the tables was identical to that presented in the paper. A further paper which had originally been rejected was resubmitted to Journal B, albeit slightly expanded, but with an entirely new list of authors. An independent statistician reviewed both papers and found that the content of two tables was identical except for the p values. Many of these had acquired a significance not suggested in the first manuscript. Further to this example and the examination of just a few of the listed publications, clear cases of duplicate publication and attempted duplication were found. It’s worrying that seemingly similar work can have different lists of authors, which suggests “gift” authorship. Changes in details of treatment and statistical significance throws the veracity of some of the work into question. Furthermore, the group’s general failure to cite its own publications suggests a deliberate attempt to cover up duplication. The editor of Journal B wants to inform the author that his publication will not consider any further submissions from this group. There is no guarantee that manuscripts would be original and issues of copyright are unclear. The editor would also like to alert the editors of the other journals involved. Is this a reasonable course of action to take?
Advice:
_必须制造更广泛的询问;仅仅写信给作者就不够了。已经获得了独立评估，其中提交人的轻罪非常明显。_这是提交人的调查机构的问题。_通过在Medline上进行搜查，已经检测到先前的重复出版物的案例。_所有共同作者的角色也是在几篇论文中出现的所有共同作者也是值得怀疑的，尽管许多人可能没有意识到由于礼品作者而受累。在接近所有作者之前，这是不明智的不考虑这一群体的出版物。_编辑的主要问题是收回和关于提交人的重复的重复和向其机构负责人转介，提高了更广泛的欺诈犯罪问题。_海外监管机构通常不回复，也许是因为它们是不感兴趣的或觉得它没有应对探讨不当行为的企业。_检查提交信函以查看所有作者是否已签署。 _ The editor should present a fuller version of the case presented at COPE to the corresponding author and all co-authors who were repeatedly linked to this work, asking for a response. _ If there is no reply, or only an unsatisfactory reply is received, then send a second letter asking for a response, giving them a set time limit in which to reply. _ If still no reply is received refer the matter to the authors’ institution(s). _ The journal editors should jointly publish a retraction and unravel the story in an editorial. _ A further option would be to send a letter to a national journal such as The Lancet or the BMJ, exposing the duplication.
期刊来自两个读者的收到的信件，指出裁队的女性组成部分出版的论文与当年早些时候在杂志上发表的论文中相同。两篇论文被送到两个独立审稿人，其中一个人认为两篇论文之间存在很大程度的重叠。另一致同意，但建议提交给杂志A的文件使用了不同的统计分析，并研究了不同的问题。既没有纸张交叉引用另一个纸张也没有签署的版权表格，他们已经同意这项研究以前没有全部或在其他地方的大部分出版。期刊A要求作者评论。他们否认论文类似。他们承认，在两篇论文中，女性群体是相同的，但目标，分析和结果完全不同。他们解释说，他们没有交叉引用，因为两篇论文同时提交，他们忽略了每篇论文作为媒体。但两个期刊的编辑都认为这是一个冗余出版物的情况，就像其中一个裁判员一样;另一个人认为该事件值得向作者发出警告。 Both editors wanted to publish a redundancy notice and to blacklist the authors for two years. They informed the authors that the issue was being referred to COPE. What does COPE think?
一篇论文被拒绝了评论家的recommendation. The editor met one of the senior authors at a conference and out of politeness apologised for rejecting his paper. He was surprised to learn that the senior author had no knowledge of this paper and that the corresponding author had written papers using the senior author’s name without his knowledge in the past. This prompted the editor to write to all the authors. Two others replied both saying that they had seen the preliminary draft of the paper several years ago but had not heard anything since. What should be done now?
_ The corresponding author should have the right to reply. _ There had been a clear breach of publication ethics as not all the authors signed the original agreement on submission. _ It probably is not enough to publish a statement and the matter should be referred to the head of the institution for an investigation, after which the journal should publish the consequences. _ A representative from the other institution—that of author X’s—should also have the right of reply, and the editor would also need to comment on the issue. _ Institutions can hide behind confidentiality agreements and there is evidence that internal enquiries are not always useful. _ The heads of the institutions of all the authors should be informed and the journal should not make any public statement until the responses had been received.
Follow up:
A letter of dissociation from the author was published by the journal. The heads of the institutions were not contacted.
There is no problem in using the same samples for different assays, but it is very important to be explicit. The head of the institution should be informed: non-disclosure is always a reason to inform the head of the author’s institution. This should have been one paper. A statement of redundancy should be published in all three journals and the authors should be blacklisted but the editors’responses should be consistent.
The committee felt that this behaviour was clearly wrong. They suggested that the two editors should write initially to the authors inviting an explanation and saying that they were considering sanctions. They should invite a reply by a certain date and if they had not heard enact the sanctions. - They suggested writing to all the authors, not just the corresponding author. - Another suggestion was peer review to ensure that the two publications were duplicates. Suggested sanctions included: - A notice of duplicate publication, including details of any further sanctions. - Consider refusing to consider papers for 2 years. - Writing to the head of department/institution.