amastyleinsider

April 14, 2011

Duplicity, or the Dangers of Duplicate e-Publication

Filed under: editing process — amastyleinsider @ 6:35 pm
Tags: ,

The senior author of a paper has posted its entire contents, including additional data that do not appear in the version sent to your publication, on his academic department’s Web site. The author did not mention this online version to the journal editors. He has already signed the publisher’s copyright transfer form. Is this a problem? How do you proceed?

The Internet has opened many new doors for the dissemination of scientific information, but it has also created new dilemmas. Just because it’s easy to post or send information to more than one place does not mean that this practice is acceptable.

As noted in the AMA Manual of Style, duplicate publication is the simultaneous or subsequent reporting of essentially the same information, article, or major components of an article 2 or more times in 1 or more forms of media (either print or electronic format) (see 5.3, Duplicate Publication).1(p148)

JAMA’s Instructions for Authors notes that submissions are considered with the understanding that they have not been published previously in print or electronic format and are not under consideration by another publication or electronic medium.2 Copies of related or possibly duplicative materials (ie, those containing substantially similar content or using the same or similar data) that have been previously published or are under consideration elsewhere must be provided at the time of manuscript submission.

According to the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), publication of complete manuscripts in proceedings of meetings in print or online may preclude consideration for publication in a primary-source journal.3

Thus, the answer to the first question above is yes, this is a problem. Duplicate submission/publication is an offense to the author–journal relationship and an affront to the ethical reporting of biomedical research. In addition, if the author has transferred copyright or a license to publish the manuscript to the journal, he/she also could violate copyright law. The type of Web site that has posted the article is not relevant; whether it’s another journal, an institutional site, or even a blog, online posting is publication.

To resolve the situation, it is important to know where in the publication process that manuscript is and to have a frank conversation with the corresponding author. One of the simplest options is for the journal to insist on the immediate removal of the content on the academic department’s Web site. Another approach is for the journal to reject the paper on the basis of previous publication, provided it has not published the manuscript already. In the worst-case scenario, the author refuses to take the paper off the Web site and the journal has already published it as well. This could lead to a notice of duplicate publication, consultation with the senior author’s institutional supervisor, and/or banning the author from publishing in that journal for a specified time.

After publication, some journals permit authors to post a copy of the published article (eg, a PDF) on their academic department or institutional Web site or establish toll-free links from these Web sites to the author’s article on the journal’s Web site. This is an acceptable form of secondary publication (see 5.3.1, Secondary Publication).

Extensive discussion of various examples and consequences of duplicate submission/publication appear in the AMA Manual of Style1 and the ICMJE guidelines.3 The new wrinkle is the ease (and speed) with which researchers can post information online. It may be easy to forget that the Internet, while seemingly ethereal, is a publication venue all the same.—Stacy L. Christiansen, MA

1. Iverson C, Christiansen S, Flanagin A, et al. The AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. 10th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2007.

2. JAMA Instructions for Authors: Duplicate/Previous Publication or Submission. http://jama.ama-assn.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml#DuplicatePreviousPublicationorSubmission. Updated March 15, 2011. Accessed April 13, 2011.

3. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Publishing and Editorial Issues Related to Publication in Biomedical Journals—Overlapping Publications. ICMJE Web site. http://www.icmje.org/publishing_4overlap.html. Updated 2009. Accessed April 13, 2011.

3 Comments »

  1. This post makes it sounds like *all* self-archiving of preprints is an evil, unethical practice. Yet what caused the problem was the (unethical) nondisclosure of it and the ignoring of journal policy on it, not the fact that it’s inherently evil. Yet the post talks about it without ever mentioning “self-archiving” or “preprints” by name. It does mention approved schemes of *postprint* self-archiving, without ever making the preprint/postprint distinction or using those terms, and without broaching the difference between green open access and gold open access. My questions include (1) doesn’t the acceptability of preprint self-archiving simply depend on each journal’s policy about preprints (not the Law of God) and (2) who says *all* preprint self-archiving is inherently evil—even fully disclosed and agreed, on an embargo schedule? For example, say a dataset appendix from the preprint was cut by the journal’s editors (thus is absent from the postprint) but is still a quite-valuable download to peers? As long as the preprint is self-archived in accordance with journal policy on such (eg, embargoed 12 months), there’s nothing wrong with the fact that, 12 months later and forever after, the article is effectively published twice, in different places, *and* in different versions. In fact, US NLM and Wellcome are pushing gold open access to happen with their requirements on supplying preprints to PubMed immediately upon publishing for all work supported by their grants (although the preprints are usually embargoed for 12 months or so before gaining downloadability, which is what turns the green to gold). Regarding “The new wrinkle is the ease (and speed) with which researchers can post information online”, I do need to point out that, with ArXiv being about 20 years old now, and earlier iterations of self-archiving having existed before that, I’d say that the “new wrinkle” sentence was true 15 and even 10 years ago—but not anymore. I totally understand a publishing company needing to put limits on self-archiving, such as embargo periods. I really do. But this post, while (rightly) chastising the author for undisclosed preprint self-archiving with no consideration of journal policy, makes it sound like there can never be ANY room in the ethical universe for negotiated preprint allowances (via journal policy) and multiple versions (pre- and post-) discoverable online. Meanwhile, the author who self-archived without telling the publisher most likely did it out of complete ignorance that there was anything wrong with it. Bet he’d say, “What? ArXiv does it all the time!” The difference is disclosure and journal-specific policy; it’s green vs gold; but I bet he seriously just didn’t even know that. I’m not saying that’s a legal excuse; I’m just saying that if publishers expect STM authors to understand the difference between green open access and gold open access, then publishers bear a burden of broadcasting to the author population continual explanations and reminders of the difference. But this post doesn’t even acknowledge the green-vs-gold conversation that has been going on “out there” hot and heavy for at least 5 years if not 10.

    Comment by Andy Pellegrini — April 29, 2011 @ 5:14 pm | Reply

  2. Sorry, after being preoccupied about this while doing other work, I read more and realized that some of what I was calling gold OA is actually “delayed OA” or “hybrid OA”. But all of my themes are still worth asking about.

    Comment by Andy Pellegrini — April 29, 2011 @ 6:36 pm | Reply

  3. [...] of the posts is particularly important for INANE members — “Duplicity, or the Dangers of Duplicate e-Publication.”  This particular post refers to and relies on the particular policies and viewpoints of [...]

    Pingback by New blog for editors, writers, publishers | From the Editor's Pen — April 29, 2011 @ 3:19 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 465 other followers

%d bloggers like this: