Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
2. Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most
important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing.
The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of
science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences.
Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there
is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or
publications in either electronic or print media. The publications
can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion,
major component(s), or complete representation of a
previously/simultaneously or future published study is duplicated.
OVERVIEW
3. The following problems can cause while duplicate/redundant
publication:
• Deception and Ethical Issues:
✓ Skews the evidence base because readers may assume that they
are reading two different readings/studies/findings.
✓ Misleads the readers that the article contains original/updated
information/research.
✓ Derangement of the reputation of that publication/journal.
✓ Distorts the purpose of publication/journal as being presenter
of some new information/findings.
✔ Infringes the international copyright law.
PROBLEMS CAUSED BY REDUNDANT
PUBLICATION
4. ✓ Waste time and the resources of journals/publications, editors,
reviewers, readers, libraries and e-database.
✔Needless expansion of the body of published
literature/findings.
✓ Wastage of journal/publication space and to create confusion
among the gentle readers/ scholars.
✓ Wastage of paper and other writing resources.
✓ Wastage of readers time and resources to find, read and
retaining the already published material when they could use that
time to read new and updated research materials.
WASTAGE OF RESOURCES
5. ✓ Overemphasizes significance of content/finding through
repetitive publication.
✔Distorts findings and confounds scientific communication by
dividing rather than combining closely related data from a single
group.
✔ Interferes with meta-analysis by experimental numbers.
IMPACT ON LITERATURE BASE
AND FUTURE RESEARCH
6. Situations when duplicate publication may be acceptable are:
✓ Brief abstracts in conference proceedings;
✔News media reports;
✓ Reports distributed to narrow audiences;
✓ Communication in two different languages with clear cross-references to
reach a larger audience;
✓ Reaching different audiences or end users;
✓ Too large studies to publish in a single phase/article;
✓ Two competing submissions by co-workers disagree with the analysis and
interpretation of the same study/findings;
✓ Editors of different journals simultaneously or jointly publishing an article
in agreement with doing so in general public interest;
✓ Manuscripts from different groups of authors who have analyzed the same
data.
ACCEPTABILITY AND
CONSEQUENCES OF REDUNDANCY
7. • Prevention may be considered as the best approach to duplicate/redundant
publication. Both the editor and the author can take combined steps
toward preventing this from becoming an issue/curse.
• First, the author must read carefully in detail the instructions for authors
of the journal to which the manuscript is being submitted.
• The author should contact the editor personally to ask for any necessary
clarification regarding any confusion.
• Authors must be cautious to report information about their study to the
media sources, funding agencies, government agencies, or others who
disseminate information before the publication of their study.
• Peer reviewers should notify the editor if duplicate publication is supposed
during the review process.
• After publication, readers are encouraged to notify the editor if there is
suspicion of duplicate publication.
• Editors should ensure that their journal's policy on duplicate publication is
clearly stated and easy to follow.
HOW TO PREVENT REDUNDANCY?
8. • The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper
into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami
slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, salami slicing involves breaking up or
segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments
are called slices of a study. The same slice should never be published more
than once at all.
• According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI),
salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading
unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice
(journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source.
• Publishing small slices of research in several different papers is salami
publication or salami slicing. It can be considered unethical because salami
slicing can result in a distortion of the literature by leading unsuspecting
readers to believe that data presented in each slice is derived from a
different subject sample.
SALAMI SLICING
9. The following corrective measures can be taken in this situation:
✓ Avoid inappropriately breaking up data from a single study into
two or more papers.
✓ When submitting a paper, be transparent.
✓ Send copies of any manuscripts closely related to the
manuscript under consideration.
✓ Be careful because this may include any manuscripts published,
recently submitted, or already accepted.
MEASURES TO CONTROL SALAMI
SLICING
