Assessment of Duplicate Publication of Chinese-Sponsored Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Duplicate publications of randomized clinical trials are prevalent in the health-related literature. To date, few studies have assessed the interaction between duplicate publication and the language of the original publication.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the existence of duplicate publication and the extent to which duplicate publication is associated with the language of the original publication.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this retrospective cohort study, eligible randomized clinical trials were retrieved from trial registries, and bibliographic databases were searched to determine their publication status. Eligible randomized clinical trials were for drug interventions from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2014. The search and analysis were conducted from March 1 to August 31, 2019. The trial registries were either primary registries recognized by the World Health Organization or the Drug Clinical Trial Registry Platform sponsored by the China Food and Drug Administration.

EXPOSURES

Individual randomized clinical trials with positive vs negative results.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Journal articles were classified as main articles (determined by largest sample size and longest follow-up among all journal articles derived from that randomized clinical trial) and duplicates. The duplicates were classified into 4 types: (1) unreferenced subgroup analysis (article did not disclose itself as a subgroup analysis or reference its main article); (2) unreferenced republication (article did not disclose itself as a replicate of the main article or reference it); (3) unreferenced interim analysis (article did not disclose itself as an interim analysis or reference its main article); and (4) partial duplicate (article did not disclose its sharing a subset of participants with other articles or reference them).

RESULTS

Among 470 randomized clinical trials published by August 2019 as journal articles, 55 (11.7%) had 75 duplicates, of which 53 (70.7%) were cross-language duplicates. Of the 75 duplicates, 33 (44.0%) were unreferenced republications, 25 (33.3%) unreferenced subgroup analyses, 15 (20.0%) unreferenced interim analyses, and 2 (2.7%) partial duplicates. When the main article of a randomized clinical trial was published in Chinese, those with positive findings were 2.48 (95% CI, 1.08-5.71) times more likely to have subsequent duplicate publication than those with negative findings.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, most duplicates were cross-language duplicates and the most common type was unreferenced republication of the main article. Duplicate publication bias exists when the main articles of randomized clinical trials were published in Chinese, potentially misleading readers and compromising journals and evidence synthesis.

[Good practices and ethical principles: as necessary as ever]

We are going through a moment in which acts of disregard to the ethics in the public function are being disclosed at all levels. It is important to know the codes of ethics and good practices of each of the functions performed. In the field of scientific publications, it is highly recommended that all researchers who wish to publish their studies get to know the good scientific practices and the basic ethical principles of publications in science. The vast majority of medical journals are guided by the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and with respect to ethical shortcomings, by the guidelines of the COPE (Committee on Ethics in Publications). Frequent examples of scientific misconduct that can be found in local magazines are problems of authorship, redundant publication and plagiarism and lack of declaration of conflict of interest. In the present article we provide links to self-learning resources on these topics and we emphasize the importance of their wide dissemination.

Similarity Analysis of Korean Medical Literature and Its Association with Efforts to Improve Research and Publication Ethics

In the present study, the frequency of research misconduct in Korean medical papers was analyzed using the similarity check software iThenticate®. All Korean papers written in English that were published in 2009 and 2014 in KoreaMed Synapse were identified. In total, 23,848 papers were extracted. 4,050 Journal Articles of them were randomly selected for similarity analysis. The average Similarity Index of the 4,050 papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 10.15% and 5.62%, respectively. And 357 (8.8%) had a Similarity Index of ≥ 20%. Authors considered a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% as suspected research misconduct. It was found that iThenticate® cannot functionally process citations without double quotation marks. Papers with a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% were thus individually checked for detecting such text-matching errors to accurately identify papers with suspected research misconduct. After correcting text-matching errors, 142 (3.5% of the 4,050 papers) were suspected of research misconduct. The annual frequency of these papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 5.2% and 1.7%, respectively. The decrease was associated with the introduction of CrossCheck by KoreaMed and the frequent use of similarity check software. The majority (81%) had Similarity Indices between 20% and 40%. The fact suggested that low Similarity index does not necessarily mean low possibility of research misconduct. It should be noted that, although iThenticate® provides a fundamental basis for detecting research misconduct, the final judgment should be made by experts.

Letter to the Editor: "Analysis of the Interaction of Dp44mT with Human Serum Albumin and Calf Thymus DNA Using Molecular Docking and Spectroscopic Techniques"

n/a.

Duplicate Publication in the Journal of Hand Surgery

This study evaluates the extent of duplicate publication in the Hand Surgery literature. A retrospective review of original articles published in the American and the British & European editions of Journal of Hand Surgery during the years 1999 and 2000 was performed using MEDLINE (PUBMED) search engine. Index articles suspected of dual publication were identified by using key words in the title and the names of the first, second and last authors. The full initial text was carefully studied and suspected duplicate articles were classified as dual, potentially dual or fragmented. Six hundred articles were evaluated, of which 25 (4%) index articles were identified with 33 “suspects”. Eleven “index” and 15 “suspected” articles were cleared on closer scrutiny. Thus 14 “index” articles (2%) were found to be associated with 18 duplicated articles. Of these, four were classified as dual, five as potentially dual and nine as fragmented. We conclude that although duplicate publication of articles in the Journals of Hand Surgery (American and British/European Volumes) does occur, the incidence in the sample studied is lower than some other surgical journals.

Incidence of Data Duplications in a Randomly Selected Pool of Life Science Publications

Since the solution to many public health problems depends on research, it is critical for the progress and well-being for the patients that we can trust the scientific literature. Misconduct and poor laboratory practice in science threatens the scientific progress, leads to loss of productivity and increased healthcare costs, and endangers lives of patients. Data duplication may represent one of challenges related to these problems. In order to estimate the frequency of data duplication in life science literature, a systematic screen through 120 original scientific articles published in three different cancer related journals [journal impact factor (IF) <5, 5-10 and >20] was completed. The study revealed a surprisingly high proportion of articles containing data duplication. For the IF < 5 and IF > 20 journals, 25% of the articles were found to contain data duplications. The IF 5-10 journal showed a comparable proportion (22.5%). The proportion of articles containing duplicated data was comparable between the three journals and no significant correlation to journal IF was found. The editorial offices representing the journals included in this study and the individual authors of the detected articles were contacted to clarify the individual cases. The editorial offices did not reply and only 1 out of 29 cases were apparently clarified by the authors, although no supporting data was supplied. This study questions the reliability of life science literature, it illustrates that data duplications are widespread and independent of journal impact factor and call for a reform of the current peer review and retraction process of scientific publishing.

Retractions in general and internal medicine in a high-profile scientific indexing database

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Increased frequency of retractions has recently been observed, and retractions are important events that deserve scientific investigation. This study aimed to characterize cases of retraction within general and internal medicine in a high-profile database, with interest in the country of origin of the article and the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which the retraction was made.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This study consisted of reviewing retraction notes in the Thomson-Reuters Web of Knowledge (WoK) indexing database, within general and internal medicine.

METHODS

The retractions were classified as plagiarism/duplication, error, fraud and authorship problems and then aggregated into two categories: "plagiarism/duplication" and "others." The countries of origin of the articles were dichotomized according to the median of the indicator "citations per paper" (CPP), and the IF was dichotomized according to its median within general and internal medicine, also obtained from the WoK database. These variables were analyzed using contingency tables according to CPP (high versus low), IF (high versus low) and period (1992-2002 versus 2003-2014). The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated for plagiarism/duplication.

RESULTS

A total of 86 retraction notes were identified, and retraction reasons were found for 80 of them. The probability that plagiarism/duplication was the reason for retraction was more than three times higher for the low CPP group (RR: 3.4; 95% CI: [1.9-6.2]), and similar results were seen for the IF analysis.

CONCLUSION

The study identified greater incidence of plagiarism/duplication among retractions from countries with lower scientific impact.

Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness of different options for de-duplicating records retrieved from systematic review searches.

METHODS

Using the records from a published systematic review, five de-duplication options were compared. The time taken to de-duplicate in each option and the number of false positives (were deleted but should not have been) and false negatives (should have been deleted but were not) were recorded.

RESULTS

The time for each option varied. The number of positive and false duplicates returned from each option also varied greatly.

CONCLUSION

The authors recommend different de-duplication options based on the skill level of the searcher and the purpose of de-duplication efforts.

Screening for self-plagiarism in a subspecialty-versus-general imaging journal using iThenticate

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Self-plagiarism is a form of research misconduct that can dilute the credibility and reputation of a scientific journal, as well as the represented specialty. Journal editors are aware of this problem when reviewing submissions and use on-line plagiarism-analysis programs to facilitate detection. The American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) uses iThenticate to screen several submitted original research manuscripts selected for review per issue and retrospectively assesses 3 issues per year. The prevalence of self-plagiarism in AJNR was compared with that in Radiology; the necessity and cost of more extensive screening in AJNR were evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The self-duplication rate in AJNR original research articles was compared with that in Radiology, a general imaging journal that screens all submitted original research manuscripts selected for review by using iThenticate. The rate of self-duplication in original research articles from 2 randomly selected 2012 AJNR issues was compared with the rate in the prior year to gauge the need for more extensive screening. A cost analysis of screening all submitted original research manuscripts selected for review by using iThenticate was performed.

RESULTS

Using an empiric 15% single-source duplication threshold, we found that the rate of significant self-plagiarism in original research articles was low for both journals. While AJNR had more articles exceeding this threshold, most instances were insignificant. Analyzing 2 randomly chosen issues of AJNR for single-source duplication of >15% in original research articles yielded no significant differences compared with an entire year. The approximate annual cost of screening all submitted original research manuscripts selected for review was US $6800.00.

CONCLUSIONS

While the rate of self-plagiarism was low in AJNR and similar to that in Radiology, its potential cost in negative impact on AJNR and the subspecialty of neuroradiology justifies the costs of broader screening.

Duplicate publication rate decline in Korean medical journals

The purpose of this study was to examine trends in duplicate publication in Korean medical articles indexed in the KoreaMed database from 2004 to 2009, before and after a campaign against scientific misconduct launched by the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors in 2006. The study covered period from 2007 to 2012; and 5% of the articles indexed in KoreaMed were retrieved by random sampling. Three authors reviewed full texts of the retrieved articles. The pattern of duplicate publication, such as copy, salami slicing (fragmentation), and aggregation (imalas), was also determined. Before the launching ethics campaign, the national duplication rate in medical journals was relatively high: 5.9% in 2004, 6.0% in 2005, and 7.2% in 2006. However, duplication rate steadily declined to 4.5% in 2007, 2.8% in 2008, and 1.2 % in 2009. Of all duplicated articles, 53.4% were classified as copies, 27.8% as salami slicing, and 18.8% as aggregation (imalas). The decline in duplicate publication rate took place as a result of nationwide campaigns and monitoring by KoreaMed and KoreaMed Synapse, starting from 2006.

Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact

AIM

To analyze mistakes and misconduct in multidisciplinary and specialized biomedical journals.

METHODS

We conducted searches through PubMed to retrieve errata, duplicate, and retracted publications (as of January 30, 2014). To analyze publication activity and citation profiles of countries, multidisciplinary, and specialized biomedical journals, we referred to the latest data from the SCImago Journal and Country Rank database. Total number of indexed articles and values of the h-index of the fifty most productive countries and multidisciplinary journals were recorded and linked to the number of duplicate and retracted publications in PubMed.

RESULTS

Our analysis found 2597 correction items. A striking increase in the number of corrections appeared in 2013, which is mainly due to 871 (85.3%) corrections from PLOS One. The number of duplicate publications was 1086. Articles frequently published in duplicate were reviews (15.6%), original studies (12.6%), and case reports (7.6%), whereas top three retracted articles were original studies (10.1%), randomized trials (8.8%), and reviews (7%). A strong association existed between the total number of publications across countries and duplicate (rs=0.86, P<0.0001) and retracted items (rs=0.812, P<0.0001). A similar trend was found between country-based h-index values and duplicate and retracted publications.

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that the intensified self-correction in biomedicine is due to the attention of readers and authors, who spot errors in their hub of evidence-based information. Digitization and open access confound the staggering increase in correction notices and retractions.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals (excerpts)

The Vancouver Convention is renowned among editors who publish dental and related research. It is the standard for what content goes in the Methods section, how tables and figures are to be laid out, and how references are to be cited, among many other particulars. Almost no biomedical research journals follow the Vancouver Convention in every detail; virtually all come very close. In addition to the mechanics of manuscript submission and formatting for publication, the Vancouver Convention is looked to as the standard for the ethics of publication. Common practice is defined for who counts as an author to what constitutes an acceptable republication. Very clear language is included regarding conformity with the Belmont Report or Helsinki Declaration and other requriments for ethical treatment of subjects. Conflicts of interest, confusion of advertising with research, relations with the popular press, and sponsorship of supplements are addressed. The Vancouver Convention makes a special point of emphasizing the responsibility of journal editors as having the final check in the chain of research ethics that begins with scientists pursuing a line of inquiry and ends when the results are reported. The Journal of the American College of Dentists endorses and honors the Vancouver Convention. In 2000, the Board of Regents of the American College of Dentists and the officers of the American Association of Dental Editors approved a joint Code of Ethics for Dental Editors. The code is based on the Vancouver Convention, but also addresses journal content beyond reports of research findings. The joint ACD-AADE code can be accessed at http://acd.org/ codefordentaleditors.htm.

Find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in systematic review

BACKGROUND

Finding duplicates is an important phase of systematic review. However, no consensus regarding the methods to find duplicates has been provided. This study aims to describe a pragmatic strategy of combining auto- and hand-searching duplicates in systematic review and to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of duplicates.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Literatures regarding portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) were searched by the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases. Duplicates included one index paper and one or more redundant papers. They were divided into type-I (duplicates among different databases) and type-II (duplicate publications in different journals/issues) duplicates. For type-I duplicates, reference items were further compared between index and redundant papers. Of 10936 papers regarding PVT, 2399 and 1307 were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. The prevalence of auto- and hand-searched redundant papers was 11.0% (1201/10936) and 6.1% (665/10936), respectively. They included 3431 type-I and 275 type-II duplicates. Of 11403 papers regarding BCS, 3275 and 2064 were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. The prevalence of auto- and hand-searched redundant papers was 14.4% (1640/11403) and 9.1% (1039/11403), respectively. They included 5053 type-I and 286 type-II duplicates. Most of type-I duplicates were identified by auto-searching method (69.5%, 2385/3431 in PVT literatures; 64.6%, 3263/5053 in BCS literatures). Nearly all type-II duplicates were identified by hand-searching method (94.9%, 261/275 in PVT literatures; 95.8%, 274/286 in BCS literatures). Compared with those identified by auto-searching method, type-I duplicates identified by hand-searching method had a significantly higher prevalence of wrong items (47/2385 versus 498/1046, p<0.0001 in PVT literatures; 30/3263 versus 778/1790, p<0.0001 in BCS literatures). Most of wrong items originated from EMBASE database.

CONCLUSION

Given the inadequacy of a single strategy of auto-searching method, a combined strategy of auto- and hand-searching methods should be employed to find duplicates in systematic review.

Prevalence of covert duplicate publications in Budd-Chiari syndrome articles in China: a systematic analysis

BACKGROUND

Covert duplicate publication is unquestionably unethical and problematic. Approximately 3000 articles describing Budd-Chiari syndrome in China have been published. However, no study has yet explored the prevalence of covert duplicate publications among these articles.

METHODS

We retrieved original articles regarding Budd-Chiari syndrome in China via the PubMed, Chinese Scientific and Technological Journal (VIP), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The prevalence of covert duplicate publications was evaluated across publication dates, institutional grades, and academic levels of the journals.

RESULTS

Overall, 1914 articles were included in our analysis. These articles were produced by 632 institutions and published in 463 journals. Overall, 10% (184/1914) of the articles, 10% (62/632) of the institutions, and 26% (119/463) of the journals were involved in covert duplicate publications. A decreasing trend in the prevalence of covert duplicate publications over time was observed. The prevalence of covert duplicate publications was significantly higher in tertiary hospitals than in primary hospitals or unclassified institutions (10.0% vs 3.8%, P = .038), but the prevalence was similar between tertiary and secondary hospitals (10.0% vs 9.3%, P = .72). The prevalence of covert duplicate publications was significantly higher in Science Citation Index journals than in Chinese Academic Core journals (23.9% vs 10.3%, P = .001) and other journals (23.9% vs 8.3%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Covert duplicate publications are relatively common among articles on Budd-Chiari syndrome in China. The high prevalence of covert duplicate publication in Science Citation Index journals should remind English-language journal editors to verify whether the articles submitted by Chinese researchers have been published in Chinese-language journals.

[The management of errors and scientific fraud by biomedical journals: They cannot replace Institutions]

Research integrity is not negotiable, but we regularly observe research misconduct, and journals are victims or guilty. Journals do not have the objective to assess research integrity: that's the Institutions' roles. Journals discover research misconduct when articles are reviewed (an editor or a reviewer detect signals), or after the article's publication when a reader or a whistleblower call the journal. The editors and reviewers' research misconduct are less described and not publicized in the medias. The peer-review system is criticised. If authors were fair-play, and reviews well done, the journals should not publish articles containing false data. The opponents to the peer-review system propose no alternatives to replace it. The anonymous peer reviews are questioned: it has never been proved that quality of anonymous reading was better than quality of open reading. The Open Access facilitated the creation of many journals. Some journals are excellent and got an impact factor; most journals have a poor quality and don't follow the publications ethics standards. When errors and fraud are identified, journals can publish 3 statements: erratum for errors, expression of concern for errors or fraud when evidence is not established, and retraction when evidence is obvious.