A paper was submitted that reported a randomised controlled trial of a treatment for a blood disorder in a group of children. Better psychomotor development was achieved in the treated group. This paper went through considerable revisions, which were requested by the editorial committee, and a revised version was finally submitted a year later. But the revised version now included a new reference to a paper in press in another journal. No one had previously been aware that there was another paper based on this study. The authors were asked to explain this, and they replied that the term ‘‘in press’’ was a mistake: the paper had only recently been submitted to the other journal a few weeks earlier. A copy of this was requested and duly faxed. There was a good deal of overlap in the methods sections of the two papers. The outcome measures looked at were largely different: the paper submitted to the journal looked at psychomotor development and the other mainly at growth and nutrition. Both reported haematological data, but these differed somewhat. The submitted paper only reported results on the subset of children who were of an appropriate age for developmental tests. There were three concerns: 1. We had not been informed that another paper arising from the same study was being submitted elsewhere. There was no way of deducing this from the covering letter. The other journal did not seem to have been informed that there was a relevant paper submitted elsewhere, at least until the authors were prompted to do this. 2. A paper was referenced as “in press” when it was simply at the stage of having been submitted. 3. There was a good deal of overlap between the two papers. But it would almost certainly have been impracticable to try to report both sets of findings in the same paper, and if they were to be separated, some overlap in the methods sections was inevitable. It could probably have been less if both papers had been submitted to the same journal. Should this matter be taken further?
_ The authors should have sent a copy of the other paper and stated that it had been submitted elsewhere. _ It is misleading to claim that the other paper is “in press, ” if it had only just been submitted for consideration. At least the second paper had been referred to in the revised version. _ Obtain an independent assessment of the two papers to decide the level of overlap. _ Write to the authors highlighting what “good practice” is—that is, declaring submissions elsewhere and emphasising the difference between a paper that has simply been submitted, and one that is “in press. ”
The authors were apologetic over what they had done and were very forthcoming about providing other information when requested. It was clear that the two different parts did need to be presented as separate papers. The authors made clear in the final version how it related to the other paper, and assured the editors they would do the same in the other paper. The editors were satisfied that there had been no deliberate intention on the part of the authors to mislead either journal.