ADDRESSING DUPLICATE PUBLICATION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM A JOURNAL EDITORIAL PROCESS
In the course of manuscript review, a reviewer alerted the editorial team to potential duplicate publication concerns. The reviewer, while working on another review, identified four articles with similar content, one of which was submitted to the journal for consideration. Upon closer examination, it became evident that the submitted manuscript and one of the published articles shared the same study angle, reported identical data, and presented the information in a similar manner. Although some wording differences existed, the core study elements were essentially the same.
Notably, the published article included a more comprehensive explanation of methods, sample description, and study limitations compared to the version submitted to the journal. The key distinction lay in the depth of detail provided in the published version.
In light of these findings, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines were consulted. The initial query was whether the same authors were involved, raising the possibility of either plagiarism or duplicate publication. COPE's advice suggested following the steps outlined in the "Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript" flowchart.
The editorial team checked the degree of overlap, which was deemed substantial. Subsequently, the authors were contacted, and an explanation was requested. The author's response was unsatisfactory, leading to the decision to reject the submitted manuscript. The authors were informed of this decision, along with an explanation of the journal's position and expectations for future submissions. Simultaneously, the editor considered reporting the situation to the author's university academic integrity committee.
The author self-reported the incident within their university and participated in a faculty workshop addressing the issue. The author also provided additional information to the editor, contributing to an upcoming editorial on duplicate publication.
This case highlights the importance of adherence to journal guidelines, thorough review processes, and the potential consequences of duplicate publication. It underscores the need for clear communication with authors, transparent editorial decisions, and, when necessary, collaboration with academic institutions to address academic integrity concerns.
