| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
The entire system of scientific publication is based on trust, fairness, and good faith: the presumption of honest endeavour. Editors and reviewers assume that authors have honestly stated what was done, what was found, and, after all due deliberation, have forthrightly described the meaning of their findings. Authors assume that their submission will receive a thorough, fair, and unbiased assessment by the reviewers selected to review their manuscript and an objective, equitable, and timely decision rendered by the editors who ultimately pass judgment on their paper.
The currency of an academic reputation is based on a radiologist's contributions to the art and practice of our specialty, as evidenced principally by the number and quality of publications that an individual has contributed to the radiologic literature. There are a relatively large number of academic radiologists who wish to publish, yet there is a only finite amount of page space available to potential authors. As a result, there is considerable competition for publication in quality radiologic journals. Authors, or for that matter, publishers, who are willing to exercise deceit and skirt generally accepted requirements and rules to gain unfair advantage in their efforts to publish articles are to be exposed and denounced.
Even if an article does not contain an English language abstract, it is still subject to discovery in these days of sophisticated computerized search engines. Continuous literature searches on most subjects are posted on various Web sites, and newsletters of lay and professional organizations often contain summaries of the world's medical literature on subjects of interest to their clientele. It is difficult to hide a previous publication under these circumstances.
This month we once again address the question of duplicate publication [1, 2], although in these cases there is a different outcome than on previous occasions. In the cases addressed in this issue of the AJR, the question of duplicate publication presumably arose because a group of authors failed to appreciate the implication of signing the AJR's exclusive publication statement.
All authors of articles to appear in most legitimate scientific journals are required to sign an exclusive publication agreement with that publication. The AJR is no exception. In signing the AJR's statement, authors attest, among other stipulations, to the fact that "[t]his article has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere."
In order to clarify the precise meaning of this statement and in hopes of avoiding misunderstandings in the future, let me amplify; when the AJR's exclusive publication statement states that the manuscript has not been previously published, previously published means simply that, previously published. Previously published in any language, previously published anywhere in the world, previously published in part or in whole, previously published in print or on electronic media, previously published regardless of whether that publication is listed in the Index Medicus, and previously published with or without the requirement for signing a transfer of copyright. Previously published means previously published, published anywhere under any condition; nothing more, nothing less.
Some might wonder, "Why are you so concerned? Why do you make such a big fuss over this issue?"
The AJR enjoys an outstanding reputation because of its long tradition of high standards as well as fairness to and consideration of our contributing authors. The Journal's editors are dedicated to the preservation of these standards.
As explained in a previous AJR Editor's Notebook [3], it is unethical to publish an article more than once. Therefore, to publish the same or essentially the same article in two or more different publications is held to be a violation of academic ethics.
The submission of previously published articles to the AJR or the simultaneous submission of an article to the AJR as well as another scientific journal is not only unethical, it is grossly unfair to other authors who submit manuscripts to the AJR.
The AJR, like practically all other scientific journals sponsored by professional organizations, is restrained by budgetary considerations. The AJR's annual budget is determined by the ARRS Publications Committee and subject to the approval of the ARRS Executive Council. The editors are given a total page target for the year in order to stay within the bounds of the budget.
Each page published costs money. In the case of the AJR, this amounts to $600-800 per black-and-white page. A page containing color costs more. Surprisingly, a page with black-and-white images costs no more than a full page of the printed word. Note, however, that 10 pages over budget would cost an additional $6000-8000, whereas an excess of 100 pages, just a little more than eight pages an issue, would result in a potentially serious $60,000-80,000 cost overrun. Editors must exercise great care in selecting articles to be published so as to limit the number of pages published and stay within budget. Editorial decisions must be made to ensure that the Journal remains on budget.
We receive 2000-2100 manuscripts a year but are able to publish only 500-600, roughly 25%, because of our page allotment. Or, to look at it another way, we are required to reject approximately 75% of what we receive regardless of the quality of the manuscripts—because we simply don't have the space to publish them.
Under these circumstances, rejection of a manuscript by the AJR does not of necessity imply that the editors and reviewers found the work to be flawed or even lacking in interest. The paper is usually rejected because it reiterates that which is already known and has already been reported elsewhere. Quite simply, the work contains nothing new.
We recognize the importance of our editorial decisions to our authors and are cognizant of our responsibilities to our readers. Obviously, editors are concerned and desire to keep errors in judgment to a minimum. In the end you have to make a decision and move on.
In this setting, duplicate publications are indefensible. The editors of the AJR are determined to continuously oppose and actively discourage this practice.
References
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. Arrive, M. Lewin, P. Dono, L. Monnier-Cholley, C. Hoeffel, and J.-M. Tubiana Redundant Publication in the Journal Radiology Radiology, June 1, 2008; 247(3): 836 - 840. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. D. Pitcher Jr and F. S. Chew Possible Duplicate Publication: AJR 2000;174:1698 and Clin Orthop 2000;373:311-316, 318-319 Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2001; 176 (4): 1078 - 1079. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Arrive and L. F. Rogers Try Writing It in French or in Japanese Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2001; 176(2): 548 - 548. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Ehara and L. F. Rogers Duplicate Publication Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2001; 176(1): 255 - 256. [Full Text]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
