Current incidence of duplicate publication in otolaryngology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Duplicate publication--deemed highly unethical--is the reproduction of substantial content in another article by the same authors. In 1999, Rosenthal et al. identified an 8.5% incidence of duplicate articles in two otolaryngology journals. We explored the current incidence in three otolaryngology journals in North America and Europe. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective literature review. METHODS: Index articles in 2008 in Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Laryngoscope, and Clinical Otolaryngology were searched using MEDLINE. Potential duplicate publications in 2006 through 2010 were identified using the first, second, and last authors' names. Three authors independently investigated suspected duplicate publications--classifying them by degree of duplication. RESULTS: Of 358 index articles screened, 75 (20.9%) had 119 potential duplicates from 2006 to 2010. Full review of these 119 potential duplicates revealed a total of 40 articles with some form of redundancy (33.6% of the potential duplicates) involving 27 index articles (7.5% of 358 index articles); one (0.8%) "dual" publication (identical or nearly identical data and conclusions to the index article); three (2.5%) "suspected" dual publications (less than 50% new data and same conclusions); and 36 (30.3%) publications with "salami-slicing" (portion of the index article data repeated) were obtained. Further analysis compared the likelihood of duplicate publication by study source and subspecialty within otolaryngology. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of duplicate publication has not significantly changed over 10 years. "Salami-slicing" was a concerning practice, with no cross-referencing in 61% of these cases. Detecting and eliminating redundant publications is a laborious task, but it is essential in upholding the journal quality and research integrity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.095 | 0.376 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".