UNCOVERING DUPLICATE PUBLICATION: A TALE OF ETHICAL OVERSIGHT IN ACADEMIC JOURNALS
In a recent incident of concern, Author X approached the editor of Journal A with a proposal for a review article on a novel treatment approach for a particular disease, co-authored by two colleagues. Despite an initial plan to submit the paper elsewhere, Author X persuaded the team to submit it to Journal A. Following peer review, the paper was accepted and published. However, shortly thereafter, a member of Journal A's editorial team stumbled upon a similar review article authored by the same trio in a recent issue of Journal B, with neither publication referencing the other.
Upon closer inspection, it became evident that significant portions of both articles bore striking similarities, including sections of text, structural elements, and shared figures and references. While some variations existed in the depth of explanation and focus between the two articles, the core content remained largely identical.
Editorial Response: Prompted by this discovery, Journal A's editor reached out to the corresponding author (Author Y) for clarification. Author Y expressed regret and explained that the article initially drafted for Journal B didn't align with its intended readership, prompting them to submit it to Journal A instead. However, they failed to disclose this prior submission to Journal B, citing differing target audiences as justification.
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Guidance: The committee emphasized that such instances of duplicate publication, driven by assumptions about differing readerships, are not permissible in academic publishing. Authors must transparently cite any previous iterations of their work and inform editors accordingly. In this case, the committee noted a lack of transparency on the part of the authors.
Recommendations included issuing a formal reprimand to the authors, in alignment with journal guidelines. Additionally, authors were urged to insert a note in the published review acknowledging the similar but distinct article published elsewhere, with appropriate citation. Should authors refuse, the journal was advised to include such a statement independently. Furthermore, consideration was given to addressing this issue in an editorial to underscore the importance of ethical publishing practices.
Conclusion: This case serves as a reminder of the ethical obligations incumbent upon authors and journals in ensuring transparency and integrity in scholarly dissemination, reinforcing the need for adherence to established publication guidelines.
