A paper entitled: “X and Y versus X alone for condition A in children” was submitted to Journal A and published in 2001. Journal A has since been alerted to a paper published in Journal B in 1999, entitled: “Comparison of combination of X and Y with X alone in the treatment of condition A, ” written by two of the four authors in conjunction with another author not listed on paper A. Most of the abstract, methods, and discussion of the two papers are identical. The main difference is that paper B has four more patients in the study group and in Journal A all patients are referred as being 16 years old. In Journal B, the authors mention that the treatment dose was lowered for children but do not identify how many of the study group were 16 years old. The figures in the two articles have identical axes but the curve is slightly different. Tabular data show the two papers’ subject groups have different age ranges, but the breakdown of boys to girls is very similar as is the breakdown of the subtypes of the condition being treated. All of the references in paper B are used in paper A, but the authors have added six extra references, one of which is the reference to paper B. The reference to paper B is made in the discussion section of paper A where the authors say:“Recently we reported that a combination of X and Y is a highly effective therapy for the treatment of condition A.” What should the editor do?
_ It was surprising that the editor and/or reviewer(s) didn’t pick up on the fact that the reference was in the paper. But the onus is on the author to send in any papers that may have potential overlap with a submitted paper. _ This case was an example of poor behaviour on the authors’ part. _ The second paper sounded like the same study, or perhaps a subset of the same study. It was not clear whether the author had made any form of declaration as to the earlier study other than the reference and brief mention of the first study in passing. _ Some journals now search and pull authors’ references as a matter of course. This is primarily to find suitable reviewers, but often highlights duplicate papers. _ This is easier with an online submission system where a paper’s references are automatically hyperlinked to the Medline reference. _ The difference of four patients suggests an element of deception. _ If he has not already done so, the editor needs to ask the authors to give their side of the story. _ The editor should check the initial submission letter to see if the author did make any kind of declaration about the other paper. _ The editor should also pursue this matter with the authors’ employers and request an investigation. _ It is important to notify the author that the editor is planning on this course of action. _ The editor should contact the head of the authors’ institution(s), as a department head would be too closely involved. _ Ultimately, the editor may have to withdraw the paper as its publication would skew data on the treatment being investigated.