Editor's Comment: On Redundant and Duplicate Articles
=====================================================

* Mauricio Castillo

The availability of large electronic data bases and our ease in querying them makes recognition of redundant and duplicate publications easier. Both are considered to be a type of self-plagiarism. Once an editor recognizes a publication as redundant or duplicate, he or she may choose to inform PubMed with or without warning the author(s). This data base immediately will post a retraction note and a warning indicating the nature of this action. Obviously, this process may have deleterious effects on the reputation of the author(s). If one attempts to open the article published Dr. Aksöz et al in the *Korean Journal of Radiology*, such a warning appears.1 The Editor-in-Chief of that journal and members of the Ethical Committee on Publication of its parent organization concluded there are enough similarities between that article and a subsequent one published in *AJNR* to place both in the category of redundant publication. In his letter, Dr. Akan, the principal author of the *AJNR* article debates this point of view.2 What do we mean by redundant and duplicate publication?

Redundant publication: This is also called repetitive publication and refers to publication of copyrighted material that contains additional or new data.3 Thus, although it is not an exact copy of a previously published article it contains parts of it. After carefully reading the articles in question here, I have concluded that they fall into this category.

Duplicate publication: This refers to publication of identical articles with or without acknowledgment. The publications in question here do not fall into this category though I should mention that the *AJNR* article does not reference the one that appeared earlier in the *Korean Journal of Radiology*.

The reasons why redundant and duplicate publication are unethical include: infringement of copyright laws, poor utilization of resources including reviewers’ and editors’ time and journal pages, overemphasizing results, and future interference with meta-analyses.4 The most common motive behind these types of publications involves academic advancement by apparently increasing productivity.

Occasionally, an editor may choose to choose to accept and publish redundant or duplicate articles. This choice is made only when their message is significantly important and when the authors disclose this fact a priori. In the articles by Drs. Akan and Aksoz, no disclosures were made. The *AJNR* and its editorial staff take pride in publishing only original, highly scientific articles and will not permit the publication of redundant or duplicate articles.

## References

1.  Aksoz T, Akan H, Celebi M, et al. **Does the oropharyngeal fat tissue influence the oropharyngeal airway in snorers? Dynamic CT study.** Korean J of Rad 2004;5:102–06
    
    

2.  Akan H, Aksoz T, Belet U, et al. **Dynamic upper airway soft-tissue and caliber changes in healthy subjects and snoring patients.** AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:1846–50
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMjUvMTAvMTg0NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIzOiIvYWpuci8yOC8xMC8xODQxLjMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

3.  Benos DJ, Fabres J, Farmer J, et al. **Ethics and scientific publication.** Advan Physiol Edu 2005;29:59–74
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1152/advan.00056.2004&link_type=DOI) 

4.  [http://www.publicationethics.org.uk](http://www.publicationethics.org.uk). Accessed July 16,2007
    
    

*   Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology