SIMULTANEOUS PUBLICATION
Case
About a month after our Journal A published a Paper X, the journal received emails from readers that Paper X was very similar to a Paper Y that had just been published by another Journal B. Some of these emails were sent to both journal offices. Paper X was submitted to Journal A a few days before Paper Y was submitted to Journal B and Paper X was published in Journal A about 3 weeks before Paper Y. The two paper superficially do not look similar and Paper X contains results that are not in Paper Y. However, the two papers also contain highly similar results and make similar key conclusions. Truth be told, all of the additional results presented in Paper X were added during revisions. The authors of Paper X knew that Paper Y had been accepted by Journal B by the time they submitted the first revision of Paper X to Journal A.
The authors of these two papers overlap significantly and the two co-corresponding authors are the same. Journal contacted the authors. The authors pointed out the obvious differences between the two papers and a few minor differences that most readers would not detect, and insisted that the results reported in these two papers were obtained separately rather than the same results reported in two papers. In addition to those readers who sent emails to the editorial, the reviewers of Paper X and a few editorial board members of Journal A who read these two papers all agreed that the two papers were highly similar.
Journal contacted the office of Journal B and the Editor, and received a message from the managing editor of Journal B that the Editor of Journal B had asked for and received an explanation from the authors and was satisfied with the explanation.
COPE advice
Regardless of what the other journal does, the editor should publish a notice of concern. If it becomes clear that the data are the same, then the editor should consider publishing a notice of duplication. It is COPE’s policy not to encourage banning authors or to apply any other sanctions, partly because of the risk of litigation.
Solving the situation
This case was being investigated by the authors’ institution. A response was received from a Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President of the university. According to this letter, the investigation group consisted of one external expert (who coincidentally is a member of Journal A’s editorial board) and two university professors. Journal A is satisfied with this investigation conducted by the authors’ institution, and the communication regarding proper author/researcher conduct in publications from the authors’ institution to these authors.
