We received an article at our editorial office in April 2008. One of the referees discovered that a similar article had been published in a surgical journal in 2000. In that article, the authors presented data on the haemodynamics and intestinal blood flow in pigs.
In the article submitted to us, they presented the same results, but only the first three time points (which had been included in the first article). The data were exactly the same but the graphical presentation was different. The language was different; not copied from the first. The article submitted to our journal included three new authors (not on the original paper).
The authors have admitted all of this. The authors claim the second article is justified because they have some new, minor elements in the discussion. They were unable to admit and see that this is a clear case of double publication. We told them this was a serious violation of international rules for publication ethics. We also told them that it was unacceptable to include three new authors this time.
The authors admitted to having done all this, but were very offended by our response. I told them I would consult COPE to obtain an objective statement.
The Forum chair noted that COPE could not provide an objective statement for the editor without reviewing both papers, but the purpose of the Forum is to discuss the summary of the case and give the editor advice.
The Forum agreed that as the data from the two papers are the same, the editor is well within his rights to reject the paper. The editor should warn the authors that this is not acceptable behaviour. Some of the members of the Forum suggested taking the matter further and contacting the authors’ institution, informing the Dean of the Faculty of the facts of the case. The Forum also raised the question of the three new authors on the second paper and suggested that the author should be reminded of the criteria for authorship.
The editor believed that this was a case of duplicate publication and he wrote to the dean of the faculty where the authors were working informing the dean about his concerns and requesting an investigation into the matter. The article was rejected.
The Dean responded that he took this information very seriously and would follow-up. As far as our journal is concerned, the article was rejected and the investigation was left to the Dean to follow-up. The editor received a letter from one of the authors of the original publication in 2000. This author was furious with her colleagues. She obviously did not know that some of the original authors had attempted this double publication. From the journal’s point of view, the case is now closed. The editor feels confident that the offenders will get a strong reaction from their university.