Why on earth is the Green Journal publishing an article on covert duplicate publication in China?(1) Why does it occur? Who is to blame? And in the jargon of journal editors, is this experience “generalizable”? Finally, and to the point here, what should be done?
In China, inducements to publish are colossal, especially for publications in Western journals. Universities pay cash awards, housing benefits, and, of course, academic advancement.2 In the article1 in this issue of the Journal, the incidence of such duplication for an article on Budd-Chiari syndrome is on the order of 10%. “Understandable,” “common in Communist countries,” “who can blame them?” run the comments from the West, and “thank God we don’t have that!”
Don’t we?
Every line item on a curriculum vitae matters greatly in the United States for academic promotion, and the list of publications, especially so. Promotion and the possibility of tenure mean security, further advancement, and better jobs. Life can become appreciably better, and if spin, slant, and “development” can lengthen that list, well, why not? Everybody does it.
Not everybody, but a sufficient number of “reputable” scientists to cause concern. Several thousand early- and mid-career scientists based in the United States and funded by the National Institutes of Health were polled regarding their own behavior.(3) Some 5% to 6% admitted to publishing the same data or results in 2 or more publications. Analysis of articles in another study found a similar prevalence.(4)
Of course, covert duplicate publishing is wrong. In the world of useful journal articles, it affects meta-analyses. It is dishonest, unprofessional, and the fault of the individual. That individual is not a victim—not of toilet training, academic pressures (more on this), or mentoring—and no amount of course correction in these issues will resolve the problem.
We may never resolve the problem. But in this area of fraudulent publication, we can catch the cheats, and compared with falsification of data, ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements, or changes in design as a response to pressure from funding sources, covert duplicate publication is not that difficult to discover. Although used primarily to catch plagiarism, database programs such as Turnitin may be useful here.(5)
To read this article in its entirety, please visit our website.
– Michael A. LaCombe, MD
This article originally appeared in the July 2013 issue of The American Journal of Medicine.
Related Articles:
