title: Duplicate publications: redundancy in plastic surgery literature.
abstract: The practice of duplicate publication has been condemned widely in the scientific community and several studies have been conducted to establish the level of the problem in various surgical fields. A retrospective review of original articles from the British Journal of Plastic Surgery and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery during 2000 was conducted, using Medline (PubMed). A total of 431 abstracts were screened, from which 27 index articles related to 33 'suspected redundant' publications. Further evaluation was carried out by comparing the full text versions of these articles and assigning a grade of non-dual, dual, potentially dual and 'salami-slicing'. Only four suspect articles were confirmed as having some degree of redundancy, and these related to three index articles (3/431, <1%). The incidence of duplication in plastic surgery literature seems to be much lower compared to other surgical specialties, providing reassurance for reviewers, editors and readers of these journals.
authors.affiliation: University of Manchester, Manchester Incubator Building, 48 Grafton Street, Manchester M13 9XX, UK. pdurani@fastmail.fm
authors.forename: Piyush
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Durani
mesh_terms: D015706:Bibliometrics; D015713:Duplicate Publications as Topic; D006801:Humans; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011643:Publishing / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013518:Surgery, Plastic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*