overlapping publications

For research reports: when two (or more) articles report the same analysis of the same data set, or contain relatively small amounts of new data or alternative analyses compared with the original publication, particularly when this is done in such a way that reviewers/readers are unlikely to realise that some of the findings have been published before

For reviews and editorials: when two (or more) review articles or editorials include material that has been published elsewhere by the author(s)

Search results

  1. Duplicate publication or salami publication?

    09-07 An author submitted an article to my journal. The editorial board discovered that the author had already published his article in another journal. The editorial board communicated with the author and he defended himself stating ...

  2. A case of duplicate publication?

    08-29 A paper was accepted and published in journal A which dealt with a cohort of patients with an unusual respiratory pathogen. A similar paper had been published in a US journal B a few months before. It dealt with more or less the ...

  3. Retrospective trial registration

    08-05 The authors carried out a randomised single blind controlled trial on the effects of a pain relieving intervention in pregnant women for pelvic girdle pain. Participants were recruited between 2000 and 2002 and the results were ...

  4. Inadvertent discovery of salami submission

    07-28 The journal submitting this case to COPE sent a paper [paper 1] to a reviewer who wrote this in the review: “…That apart, this manuscript seems to be another report of the already published **** trial, looking at the data from a ...

  5. Author dispute over internal report

    07-27 Author A was paid to facilitate a meeting and write a meeting report for internal purposes.  He was paid to do this by author C’s company. The report was posted as a PDF on author C’s company website. No authors were listed on the ...

  6. Salami publication

    05-07 A paper submitted to Journal A was rejected after critical peer review. Although the data and methods were sound, the data in the paper were not new and had been described, at least in part, in previous publications. The authors ...