Trust but verify: An analysis of redundant publications from two major psychiatry journals in India.

BACKGROUND

No analysis of redundant or duplicate publications, deemed unethical and unscientific, has been undertaken in psychiatric literature.

AIM

To analyze the proportion and patterns of redundant publications associated with index articles published in two major Indian psychiatry journals.

METHODS

Index articles were original papers published in the and the between 2015 and 2017. Using a systematic search strategy that combined author names and article keywords, we combed the literature to identify and characterize redundant publications related to these index articles. Redundant publications were classified into one of the following categories using definitions: dual, suspected dual, salami slicing, meat extender, and extended sample publication.

RESULTS

From 324 index articles screened, a total of 27 articles (8.4%) were identified to have 32 associated redundant publications of the following types: dual ( = 3), suspected dual ( = 2), salami slicing ( = 22), meat extender ( = 3), and extended sample publication ( = 2). A majority of the redundant articles ( = 23, 71.9%) failed to clearly cross-reference the prior publication(s). We also identified nine non-redundant but related publications with no proper cross-referencing in five of them.

CONCLUSION

Redundant publications are a common practice in the psychiatry journals screened. Salami slicing is the most common form of redundancy, with no proper cross-referencing in most cases. Concerted efforts are needed to detect and deal with this concerning practice that undermines both science and ethics.