A paper was submitted to a UK specialist medical journal. At review, one of the reviewers alerted the editor to the fact that a very similar paper had been published in a US specialist title. It seems very likely that the reports describe the same randomised controlled trial. The only piece of new information was not an important outcome of the trial. The authors did not disclose the existence of the first paper. The editor wrote to the authors rejecting the paper for the above reasons and informing them that he had reported the matter to COPE. What more, if anything, should he do?
_ A randomised controlled trial is the most dangerous form of redundancy. _ The editor should write to the authors informing them of his suspicions of redundancy, cite the COPE guidelines, and give the author the chance to respond. _ The editor should seek independent advice about the degree of redundancy and report the matter to the head of the author’s institution or dean, as appropriate.
No response has been received from the authors. The matter was not reported to the head of the authors’ institution.