...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The Laryngoscope: A Medical Journal for Clinical and Research Contributions in Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Medicine and Surgery, Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery .. >Current incidence of duplicate publication in otolaryngology
【24h】

Current incidence of duplicate publication in otolaryngology

机译：目前耳鼻喉科重复发表的发病率

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objectives/Hypothesis Duplicate publication - deemed highly unethical - is the reproduction of substantial content in another article by the same authors. In 1999, Rosenthal et al. identified an 8.5% incidence of duplicate articles in two otolaryngology journals. We explored the current incidence in three otolaryngology journals in North America and Europe. Study Design Retrospective literature review. Methods Index articles in 2008 in Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Laryngoscope, and Clinical Otolaryngology were searched using MEDLINE. Potential duplicate publications in 2006 through 2010 were identified using the first, second, and last authors' names. Three authors independently investigated suspected duplicate publications - classifying them by degree of duplication. Results Of 358 index articles screened, 75 (20.9%) had 119 potential duplicates from 2006 to 2010. Full review of these 119 potential duplicates revealed a total of 40 articles with some form of redundancy (33.6% of the potential duplicates) involving 27 index articles (7.5% of 358 index articles); one (0.8%) "dual" publication (identical or nearly identical data and conclusions to the index article); three (2.5%) "suspected" dual publications (less than 50% new data and same conclusions); and 36 (30.3%) publications with "salami-slicing" (portion of the index article data repeated) were obtained. Further analysis compared the likelihood of duplicate publication by study source and subspecialty within otolaryngology. Conclusions The incidence of duplicate publication has not significantly changed over 10 years. "Salami- slicing" was a concerning practice, with no cross-referencing in 61% of these cases. Detecting and eliminating redundant publications is a laborious task, but it is essential in upholding the journal quality and research integrity.
机译：目标/假设重复出版物 - 认为高度不道德 - 是同一位作者的另一篇文章中的大量内容的再现。 1999年，Rosenthal等人。在两个耳鼻喉科期刊中鉴定了8.5％的重复物品发病率。我们探讨了北美和欧洲三个耳鼻喉学期刊的目前发病率。学习设计回顾性文献综述。方法使用Medline搜查2008年耳鼻喉头和颈部手术，喉镜和临床耳鼻喉科术中2008年的指标文章。使用第一个，第二个和最后一个作者的名称确定了2006年至2010年的潜在重复出版物。三位作者独立调查了疑似重复的出版物 - 按重复程度对它们进行分类。结果358指数文章筛选，75（20.9％）从2006年到2010年有119个潜在的重复项。全面审查这119个潜在的重复员揭示了40篇文章，具有某种形式的冗余（33.6％的潜在复制品）涉及27指数文章（7.5％的358份指标物品）;一个（0.8％）“双重”出版物（相同或几乎相同的数据和指数物品的结论）;三（2.5％）“怀疑”双出版物（不到50％的新数据和相同的结论）;和36（30.3％）出版物，具有“萨拉米切片”（重复的指数物品数据的部分）。进一步分析与耳鼻喉科内的研究来源和亚特点进行了重复出版的可能性。结论重复出版物的发病率超过10年没有显着改变。 “萨拉米 - 切片”是一项关于练习的讨论，在这些病例的61％中没有交叉引用。检测和消除冗余出版物是一种艰苦的任务，但在维护期刊和研究完整性方面至关重要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号