Too many copies: confusion between duplication and versioning

Palaeontology, 2006

Abstract: Duplication of previously published text or figures in the scientific literature without adequate citation is plagiarism or, in the case of an author's own work, self-plagiarism. It breaches the ethical standards that are expected in science and threatens the integrity of scientific journals. Three examples of duplication are noted, one of which involves Palaeontology. Redundant publication lowers the quality of scientific literature, damages the good standing of journals, and reduces the intellectual impact of a study. Multiple papers on a particular theme are only acceptable if each builds significantly upon previous work and contains only as much background information as necessary to put the new data and observations into perspective.

Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition), 2005

Yank and Barnes, did a land mark survey of editors and authors to assess their views regarding overlapping Duplicate/redundant publications: quality should take precedence over quantity How to cite this article : Bipeta R. Duplicate/ redundant publications: quality should take precedence over quantity. AP J Psychol Med 2013; 14(1):1-4.

Publications, 2019

Reproductions and replications of experiments and surveys are important for ensuring the healthy development of modern science. The so-called replication crisis is a problem that needs to be addressed in various ways. In this paper, we propose to make a special category for replication papers, where the focus should be to verify or falsify the results of previously-published experiments or surveys. We also propose some guidelines for the types and content of replication papers.

Thorax, 2002

We are writing to express our unease at what we believe is inappropriate censure imposed on our colleague Professor Corris concerning duplicate publications. 1 2 Professor Corris was asked to write what was essentially a CME article for Clinical Medicine on a subject that he had recently reviewed in detail for Thorax. It was inevitable that there would be considerable duplication. The same papers and information were being disucssed and there are limitations in the way complex arguments can be expressed. It is universally accepted that a degree of duplication in review articles is completely different from trying to pass off as a new study previously published peer reviewed papers containing original data. It is commonplace for people with authoritative opinions to write similar articles in more than one journal as shown by the similarities between the Harveian oration by Warrell published in the same issue of Clinical Medicine and an earlier manuscript in the Lancet. 3 4 We believe such duplication is entirely appropriate, as surely it is our duty as educators to disseminate information to as wide an audience as possible. Fraud in any shape or form in science is to be wholly deplored, but let us not be so zealous in its pursuit that we smear the innocent to the detriment of us all. At risk of another duplicate publication, we have also sent this letter to the editor of Clinical Medicine.

JAMA, 2004

Context Duplicate publication is publication of an article that overlaps substantially with an article published elsewhere. Patterns of duplication are not well understood. Objective To investigate duplication patterns and propose a decision tree for classification. Data Sources We searched a comprehensive list of systematic reviews (1989 through August 15, 2002) in anesthesia and analgesia that is accessible on the Internet. We selected published full articles of duplicates that had been identified in these systematic reviews. Abstracts, letters, or book chapters were excluded. Study Selection and Data Extraction Authors of 56 (40%) of 141 systematic reviews acknowledged identification of duplicates. Duplication patterns were identified independently by all investigators comparing samples and outcomes of pairs of duplicates and main articles. Information on cross-reference, sponsorship, authorship, and publication characteristics was extracted from the articles. Data Synthesis The 56 systematic reviews included 1131 main articles (129337 subjects) and excluded 103 duplicates (12589 subjects) that originated from 78 main articles. Sixty articles were published twice, 13 three times, 3 four times, and 2 five times. We identified 6 duplication patterns: (1A) identical samples and identical outcomes (21 pairs); (1B) same as 1A but several duplicates assembled (n=16); (2) identical samples and different outcomes (n=24); (3A) increasing sample and identical outcomes (n=11); (3B) decreasing sample and identical outcomes (n=11); (4) different samples and different outcomes (n=20). The prevalence of covert duplicate articles (without a crossreference to the main article) was 5.3% (65/1234). Of the duplicates, 34 (33%) were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, and 66 (64%) had authorship that differed partly or completely from the main article. The median journal impact factor was 1.8 (range, 0.1-29.5) for duplicates and 2.0 (range, 0.4-29.5) for main articles (P=.13). The median annual citation rate was 1.7 (range, 0-27) for duplicates and 2.1 (range, 0-31) for main articles (P=.45). The median number of authors was 4 (range, 1-14) for duplicates and 4 (range, 1-15) for corresponding main articles (P=.02). The median delay in publication between main articles and duplicates was 1 year (range, 0-7 years). Conclusions Duplication goes beyond simple copying. Six distinct duplication patterns were identified after comparing study samples and outcomes of duplicates and corresponding main articles. Authorship was an unreliable criterion. Duplicates were published in journals with similar impact factors and were cited as frequently as main articles.

2019

A large number of scientists and several news platforms have, over the last few years, been speaking of a replication crisis in various academic disciplines, especially the biomedical and social sciences. This paper answers the novel question of whether we should also pursue replication in the humanities. First, I create more conceptual clarity by defining, in addition to the term “humanities,” various key terms in the debate on replication, such as “reproduction” and “replicability.” In doing so, I pay attention to what is supposed to be the object of replication: certain studies, particular inferences, of specific results. After that, I spell out three reasons for thinking that replication in the humanities - objections that have been levelled in response to this idea of mine and Lex Bouter - is not possible and argue that they are unconvincing. Subsequently, I give a more detailed case for thinking that replication in the humanities. Finally, I explain why such replication in the humanities is not only possible, but also desirable.

Yank and Barnes, did a land mark survey of editors and authors to assess their views regarding overlapping Duplicate/redundant publications: quality should take precedence over quantity How to cite this article : Bipeta R. Duplicate/ redundant publications: quality should take precedence over quantity. AP J Psychol Med 2013; 14(1):1-4.

This paper presents an explanation of how information might be transferred across time (and space) by analysis of the nature of form, order and structure. The first part of the paper show how transfer of information is closely connected to near absolute randomicity with the result that systems of near perfect similarity will have an increasing potential to resonate with each other across time. The detail of this mechanism is explained in terms of principles of physics and observation, and it is shown to be a self ordering tendency to counter that of entropy. The hypothesis is split into two sections. The first part can be defined very briefly as "Equal intervals in space- similar structures- tend to duplicate themselves through all time in the same location" which is effectively the corollary of the second part: "equal intervals in time- similar actions- tend to duplicate themselves through all space at one moment in time". This second part shows how information is transferred through space simultaneously. This is already familiar as electromagnetic radiation, but gives a supplementary analysis of how and why it occurs.

Ddi Alliance Working Papers Series, 2009

One of the objectives in creating DDI 3.0 was full machine-actionability. This requires strict versioning of objects so that users understand the change history of the resources they are using. This Best Practice is designed to provide some guidelines to metadata creators and publishers about how to version metadata and publish it for others to use.