Ethical Review ofDuplicate Publication by KAMJE

Chong-Woo Bae*, Soo Young Kim*,
Sun Huh*, Chang Kok Hahm*, Hye Min Cho,*Committee on Publication Ethics, KAMJEThis presentation material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
Non-Commercial License.

Committee on Publication Ethics,KAMJE• KAMJE: established in 1996
– KoreaMed, KoreaMed Synapse, Komci databases• Committee on Publication Ethics, KAMJE :started in 2006
– Educations– Symposia– Publications: guideline– Inquiry, Q&A, Consultation, Advisory

Introduction• Research misconduct– Fabrication– Falsification– Unethical research• Publication misconduct– Plagiarism– Biased/selective reporting– Authorship abuse– Redundant publication– Undeclared conflict of interest– Reviewer misconduct– Abuse of position

Can't turn back the clock
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, UK)Duplicate publication
can be defined as follows• Overlaps substantially with one already published inprint or electronic media– Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing andEditing for Biomedical Publication (ICMJE, 2010)• Occurs when two or more papers, without full cross-reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion
points or conclusions– Guidelines on Good Publication Practice (Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE, 1999)

to define 'substantial', not clearly !!!!

to define more clearly !!
1. The hypothesis is similar.
2. The numbers or sample
sizes are similar.
3. The methodology isidentical or nearly so.
4. The results are similar.
5. At least 1 author iscommon to both reports.
6. No or little new information
is made available.

Cho BK, et al*. Joint statement on redun
dant (duplicate) publication by the editors of the undersigned cardiothoracic journals [editorial]. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:663.

Interpretation of the Criteria in Ou
Criteria for Double Publications of ther Study (the Criteria for Double Publi
Joint Statement on Redundant Publicati
cations Were Applied Restrictively; Pron* (All the Following Points Must Ap
obable but Not Certain Doubles Wereply)
Not Counted)

Similar hypothesis

Same or nearly same statements abo
ut same population parameters; sameor nearly same dependent and indepen
dent variables

Similar numbers or samplesizes

90% or more of the studied materials, animals, or subjects are identical

Identical or nearly identicalmethodology

Same or nearly same means by whic
h data are collected, analyzed, and presented

Similar results

Outcomes in nearly same quantity and quality

At least 1 author in common

Determined by duplicate detection al
gorithm and manually rechecked

No or little new information ma No or very little additional knowled
ge provided
de available

Mojon-Azzi SM et al. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:863-866

Prevalence ofduplicate publications• Has been estimated in a few field and journals–––1) Blancett SS. Image J Nurs Sch. 1995, 2) Mojon-Azzi SM. Ophthalmology. 2004.
3) Rosenthal EL. Laryngoscope. 2003, 4) Chennagiri RJ. J Hand Surg. 2004
5) Sun M. Science. 1989, 6) Barnard H. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1993, 7) Arrivé L. Radiology. 2008

• Duplicate publication rates of randomized controlled
trials in a few clinical intervention has also been
estimated.
–8) Tramer MR. BMJ. 1997, 9) von Elm E. JAMA. 2004

• The estimated duplication rate were 1.8-28% in clinicalfields and journals, and around 10% in clinical trialpublications–1-9)

2004

Duplicate publication rate in Korea (2004): 5.93%

Two subjects in this presentation(1) Tracking temporal trends in duplicate publicationin Korean medical journals (2004-2009)(2) Introduce the book, “Sample cases of duplicatepublication”, published by KAMJE (2011)

(1) Tracking temporal trends induplicate publicationin Korean medical journals (2004-2009)

Tracking temporal trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical journals (2004-2009)

Purpose• To identify trends in duplicate publication
prevalence (2004–2009) in Korean medical
journals indexed in KoreaMed around an
preventing duplicate publication campaign period
in Korea (Start: 2005-2006)

Tracking temporal trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical journals (2004-2009)

Design• Study period: from 2007 to 2012
• Samples– 5% of articles were chosen by random sampling in
KoreMed database– in 2004-2009• Three authors reviewed• Criteria for a duplicate publication defined as next slides• The type of duplicate publication was determined.
Start preventing duplicate publication campaign was held by theKAMJE around 2005-2006

Tracking temporal trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical journals (2004-2009)

Criteria for duplicate publication
1. The hypothesis is similar.
2. The numbers or sample sizes are similar.
3. The methodology is identical or nearly so.
4. The results are similar.
5. At least 1 author is common to both reports.
6. No or little new information is madeavailable.

Cho BK, et al*. Joint state
ment on redundant (duplicate) publication by the edi
tors of the undersigned car
diothoracic journals [editorial]. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:663.

Plus Mojon-Azzi SM et al. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:863-866
Plus ICMJETracking temporal trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical journals (2004-2009)

The process of study
Searching- Librarian

A- Librarian

Screening

B
Review full text
C- Three reviewers

DNot duplicate

DuplicateDiscardPatterndetermineTracking temporal trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical journals (2004-2009)

Results
Temporal trend of duplicate publication
20042005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Screened No.
(A)

455

467

460

462

466

505(B)(SuspiciousNo.)

49

4643

38

1923

Hits ofDuplicate (C)

2728

33

21

136(D)(Duplicatepapers)

22181017617C/A*100(%)

5.93

5.99

7.17

4.54

2.78

1.19

Duplicate publication rateTracking temporal trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical journals (2004-2009)

Temporal trends of duplicate publication in Korea
8Duplication rate (%)

65Year

7.17%

75.93%

5.99%
4.54%

43

2.78%

21.19%

102004

20052006

200720062009

Start Committee on Publication Ethics, KAMJE
Start preventing duplicate publication campaign in Korea by KAMJE (2005–2006)

Tracking temporal trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical journals (2004-2009)

Pattern of duplicate publication(%)

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Copy

19 (65.5)

18 (64.2)

13 (37.1)

10 (47.6)

6 (42.9)

5 (83.3)

Salami4 (13.8)

5 (17.9)

12 (34.3)

9 (42.9)

6 (42.9)

1 (16.7)

Imalas

6 (20.7)

5 (17.9)

10 (28.6)

2 ( 9.5)

2 (14.3)

0(0 )

Total

29 (100)

28 (100)

35 (100)

21 (100)

14 (100)

6 (100)

Copy: 37-83%, Salami : 14-43%, Imalas: 9-28%

Tracking temporal trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical journals (2004-2009)

Number of duplicate
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Double26(96.3)

28(100)31(93.9)21(100)12(92.3)

6(100)

Triple00( 0 )

2( 6.1)0( 0 )

1( 7.7)0( 0 )

Quadruple

1( 3.7)0( 0 )0( 0 )0( 0 )0( 0 )0( 0 )

Total

27(100)28(100)33(100)21(100)13(100)6(100)

Double: 92-100%, Triple :0-7%, Quardruple: 0-3%

Tracking temporal trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical journals (2004-2009)

Direction of publication
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Domestic->foreign13(44.8)

16(57.2)

19(55.3)

11(52.4)

10(71.4)

3(50.0)

Domestic->domestic

14(48.3)

6(21.4)12(34.3)

6(28.6)1((16.4)

2(33.3)Foreign->domestic2(6.9)

6(21.4)4(11.4)4(19.0)2(14.3)1((16.4)

Total

29(100)28(100)35(100)21(100)14(100)6(100)

Domestic ->foreign: 50-71%,
Domestic->domestic: 16-48%
Foreign->domestic: 6-21%

Tracking temporal trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical journals (2004-2009)

Conclusion• The duplication rate in Korean medical journals
became lower and showed a continuously declining
trend after preventing duplication publication campaign
held by KAMJE.
• It showed that the duplication rate might be loweredby a preventing duplicate publication campaign at thenational level.
• Continued efforts to reduce duplicate publication will beneeded.

(2) Introduce the book,“Sample cases of duplicate publication”,published by KAMJE (2011)(New classification of duplicate publication)

Introduce the book, “Samples cases of duplicate publication”, published by KAMJE (2011)

Purpose• To be useful for the training on publication ethics• More precise classification• To make Case book • “Sample cases of duplicate publication”, publishedby Committee on Publication Ethics, KAMJE (2011)• Discuss to new classification of duplicate publication
by classification from this case bookIntroduce the book, “Sample cases of duplicate publication”, published by KAMJE (2011)

Methods• 5 percent of papers from KoreaMed databse• Random selection• 100 papers• Compare by searching via KoreaMED, PubMed,
Google & other databases• Decision  agreement by 4 reviewers• Make new classification system

Introduce the book, “Sample cases of duplicate publication”, published by KAMJE (2011)

Results• 4 major categories– Copy– Salami publication– Imalas publication– Others

Category

Case number1

Copy

1-1

Complete copy with different language

1, 2, 3, 4

1-2

Complete copy with same language

5, 6

1-3

Copy with some modification with different language

7, 8, 9, 10

1-4

Copy with some modification with same language

11, 12, 13

2

Salami publication

2-1

Salami publication with divided sample number

14

2-2

Salami publication with divided outcome

15, 16, 17, 18, 19

3Imalas publication

3-1

Imalas publication with extended sample number or extended study periods

20, 21, 22, 23,24,
25, 263-2

Imalas publication with added hypothesis

27, 283-3Imalas publication with extended sample number or extended study periods, and added29, 30hypothesis
4Others

4-1

Reverse imalas

31

4-2

Not classified as above

32

Introduce the book, “Sample cases of duplicate publication”, published by KAMJE (2011)

Example: Imalas with extended sample number or extended study periods,
and added hypothesis
Contents
Authors andDecision

Two Departments publishes to different journals

Common authors -3

In diagnosis of biliary tract diseases, MR

Different

affiliation
Hypothesis

cholangiopancreatography is useful (first paper) andMRI is useful (2nd paper)
Subjects

Methods

There is a difference of study period. Additional cases in In the 2nd paper, two cases are2nd paper.

added to the first paper

The clinical findings in the first paper were introduced

Same MRI finding

partially to the second paper
Results

Most figures are duplicated in two papers

SameNew information

Same MRI finding

Nothing

Introduce the book, “Sample cases of duplicate publication”, published by KAMJE (2011)

Discussion• New classification……
• Simple?
• Easy to understand?
• Applicable to every cases?

Comparison between von Elm et al.'s classification and present classificationon the duplicate publications
von Elm et al. (2004)

Present classification (2011)1

Same sample number and results

Complete copy

2Same sample number and results but mixed

Othersfrom two different papers
3

Same sample number but different results

Salami publication with different
hypothesis (divided outcome)4

Extended sample number with same results

Imalas with extended sample number orextended study periods

5Diminished sample number with same results

Reverse imalas6

Different sample number and results

Imalas with extended sample number or
extended study periods, and added
hypothesis

Others not fit to von Elm et al. (2004)’s classification• copy with some modification with different language• copy with some modification with same language• salami with divided sample number

Introduce the book, “Sample cases of duplicate publication”, published by KAMJE (2011)

Conclusion•New classification is also comparable to that ofvon Elm et al. (2004)•Easy understanding of the determination ofduplicate publication•

Useful for training  Academic societies use it