Duplicate publications in the otolaryngology literature

Abstract

Objective/hypothesis: A duplicate publication duplicates other published work by the same author(s). The purpose of the study was to define the extent of this problem within the otolaryngology literature.

Study design: Retrospective review of the literature.

Methods: Original articles published in Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Laryngoscope in 1999 were reviewed using the OVID search engine. Titles and abstracts from English articles written by the same first, second, or last author were analyzed, and suspected publications were evaluated. Duplicate publications were classified as dual (identical data set and conclusions) or suspected dual (nearly identical data set and conclusions) publications.

Results: Of the 492 articles evaluated, 40 index articles were identified. These led to a total of 42 (8.5%) duplicate articles of which 27 were classified as dual and 15 as suspected dual publications. Approximately half of the duplicate publications were published by authors in the United States (55%). Duplicate articles usually appeared within 12 months of the each other (74%) and failed to cross-reference the earlier publication (83%).

Conclusions: Journal editors have become aware of an increase in the number of duplicate publications in the medical literature. The incidence of duplicate publications in the otolaryngology literature appears to be similar to that in other specialties.