CONTEMPLATING RETRACTION: ASSESSING SIMILARITY IN PUBLISHED PAPERS
In a recent case, questions have arisen regarding the originality of a paper published in 2022, prompting considerations of retraction due to its high similarity to the authors' previous work from 2019.
The editorial journey unfolds with an internal audit conducted by the Editorial Office, revealing that during the peer-review process, one reviewer and an associate suggested rejecting the paper. Despite these reservations, the Editor-in-Chief upheld the decision to publish, resulting in the paper's inclusion in the journal. Subsequently, further scrutiny from board members indicated familiarity with the authors' 2019 publication, raising concerns about potential duplication.
Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) advises editors to scrutinize the originality of the 2022 article, distinguishing between genuine contributions and unethical practices such as duplication or salami slicing. Decisions hinge on the presence of substantial new material justifying publication, with considerations for potential expressions of concern to elucidate editorial decisions.
Retraction may be warranted if the 2022 paper replicates content without offering novel insights or analysis. Alternatively, suspected salami slicing could prompt an invitation for the authors to reframe their work as a letter referencing their earlier publication. Additionally, the Editor-in-Chief must verify permissions for material reproduction and assess any conflicts of interest among authors, editors, or reviewers.
This case underscores the importance of upholding publication integrity and transparency, ensuring that each contribution adds genuine value to scholarly discourse while mitigating concerns surrounding duplicate content or questionable editorial decisions.
