OBJECTIVE: To determine the numbers of correct (meeting the Vancouver rules) and incorrect duplicate publications of original articles (OA) in the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. DESIGN: Retrospective bibliometric study followed by interviews. SETTING: The journal's editorial office. METHOD: Of the first and second author of 172 OA (all 95 OA from the first half of 1990 and all 77 OA from the first half of 1992) all biomedical publications of the same purport published in 1990-1992 were looked up. Subsequently the authors were approached by telephone to find out the background of these duplicate publications. RESULTS: Of 2 OA the corresponding articles were not found. Of the remaining 94 OA from the first half of 1990, II (12%) proved to have been published again without this fact being mentioned in a footnote as required by the rules (for which omission the journals were responsible in 4 and the authors in 7 cases). Of the remaining 76 OA from the first half of 1992, 12 were found to have been published previously, 5 in accordance with and 7 (9%) against the rules. Duplicate publication against the rules was to be attributed to incorrect interpretation of the Vancouver rules by the authors. CONCLUSION: Of the OA in the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd a minimum of 14% are or have already been published elsewhere, 11% without this fact being stated as required by the Vancouver rules.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the numbers of correct (meeting the Vancouver rules) and incorrect duplicate publications of original articles (OA) in the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. DESIGN: Retrospective bibliometric study followed by interviews. SETTING: The journal's editorial office. METHOD: Of the first and second author of 172 OA (all 95 OA from the first half of 1990 and all 77 OA from the first half of 1992) all biomedical publications of the same purport published in 1990-1992 were looked up. Subsequently the authors were approached by telephone to find out the background of these duplicate publications. RESULTS: Of 2 OA the corresponding articles were not found. Of the remaining 94 OA from the first half of 1990, II (12%) proved to have been published again without this fact being mentioned in a footnote as required by the rules (for which omission the journals were responsible in 4 and the authors in 7 cases). Of the remaining 76 OA from the first half of 1992, 12 were found to have been published previously, 5 in accordance with and 7 (9%) against the rules. Duplicate publication against the rules was to be attributed to incorrect interpretation of the Vancouver rules by the authors. CONCLUSION: Of the OA in the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd a minimum of 14% are or have already been published elsewhere, 11% without this fact being stated as required by the Vancouver rules.
Authors: Mounir Errami; Zhaohui Sun; Angela C George; Tara C Long; Michael A Skinner; Jonathan D Wren; Harold R Garner Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 6.937