Duplicate Publication in Radiology Journals

Chris Joon Ho Hong · Matthew D. F. McInnes · Rebecca M. Hibbert · Wilfred Dang · Zuhaib M. Mir · David Li +1 more

10 citations0/0 files storedAmerican Journal of Roentgenology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic integrity and plagiarism Publishing and Scholarly Communication scientometrics and bibliometrics research

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rate of duplicate publication in radiology journals. The secondary objective is to evaluate the sensitivity of iThenticate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1993 to December 2013, Déjà Vu (a database of highly similar citations) and PubMed were used to search for similar citations in 53 radiology journals. Citations were screened independently by two reviewers and verified by a third using predefined criteria to determine true cases of duplicate publication. The overall rate of duplicate publication was calculated; analysis of rate by journal, impact factor, and publication year was performed. The sensitivity of iThenticate was evaluated by analyzing all identified duplicate publications. RESULTS: From 128,818 citations in the included journals, 1786 (Déjà Vu) and 104 (PubMed) were flagged as potential duplicates. Of these, 248 (226 from Déjà Vu and 22 from PubMed) were classified as true duplicate publications after application of our criteria. The overall rate was 1.92/1000 citations; it varied widely across journals from zero to over 10/1000 citations, showed no correlation with impact factor (R(2) = 0.06; p = 0.093), and no change over time (R(2) = 0.28; p = 0.515). iThenticate flagged 153 of 248 (61.9%) duplicates as "possible duplicates" (defined as overall percentage match > 30%) and identified the corresponding duplicate citation pair in 140 of 248 (56.7%) cases; in 98 of these, the duplicate citation pair was the highest percentage similarity match. CONCLUSION: Duplicate publications in radiology journals are uncommon. The rate varies widely between journals, but was not associated with journal impact factor and did not change over time. iThenticate shows promise for identification of duplicate publications; however, refinements may be necessary to maximize its effectiveness.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

References

2008A tale of two citations 2001Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg?2016Retracted Publications Within Radiology Journals 2004One in 13 ‘original’ articles in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery are duplicate or fragmented publications 2008Deja vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature 2003Duplicate Publications in the Otolaryngology Literature 2006Duplicate publications: redundancy in plastic surgery literature 2004Redundant publications in scientific ophthalmologic journals

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.