The journal published an original article in 2022. Recently, we received feedback from a third party that the paper is similar to the authors' other work published in 2019. The duplicate rate of the initial submission was 31% and the final version was 24% which is within the journal’s standard. The concern was that the paper may not add value as the authors have already published similar research and the 2022 paper contains no new wet lab findings.
The Editorial Office then issued an internal audit and noticed that in the peer-review process, one reviewer and an associate suggested rejecting the paper. The Editor-in-Chief accepted the paper as a final decision and it was published. Recently, we contacted some board members to review the manuscript again, and the board member mentioned that he had viewed the 2019 version and suggested rejecting that one.
Question for COPE Council
- What should the journal do in this situation?
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance.
While the journal notes that the percent match rate between the two papers is within its standard, the editors may still want to consider whether there is sufficient originality in the 2022 article to merit publication, or whether it constitutes either duplication or salami slicing, both of which are regarded as unethical practices.
It may be beneficial to focus on the integrity of the article/s themselves. The percentage match rate should be supplemented with a human check for where/what the overlap between the two articles is. On what grounds was rejection recommended by one reviewer? Does the 2022 article contain follow-up or confirmatory findings? Did the Editor in Chief feel that there was enough new material in the 2022 article to merit a separate publication? Was the 2019 paper, which is obviously closely related, properly referenced in the 2022 paper?
A distinction should be drawn between a change of opinion in the editorial team and the decision-making being flawed to start with (for example, if there was a fundamental concern with the article that was overlooked). Fundamentally a decision needs to be made about whether there is sufficient new material to justify publication and if so, whether an Expression of Concern is necessary to provide a commentary explaining the editor’s decision. If the 2022 paper is a duplicate publication, meaning the content is repeated without any new data or analysis (one can bypass actual copying of text), then retraction would be warranted. If salami-slicing is suspected and the prior article were in the same journal, then the authors could be invited to rewrite the 2022 article as a letter referencing their earlier work. The Editor in Chief should also consider whether permission was granted for the reproduction of material from the 2019 article if needed.
With regard to the editor’s decision to accept the 2022 paper, attention should be paid to the journal’s policies on editorial decision making, and whether at this journal, an editor can override negative reviews. Transparency in this area is recommended as it varies from journal to journal. The journal might also wish to confirm whether there were any Conflicts of Interest between the author and the editors/reviewers.