In response to the case of redundant publication involving papers submitted to Journal A and Journal B, the Editorial Boards of both journals, guided by COPE advice, took the following steps to address the issue:
-
Independent Review: Both papers were subjected to independent review, and the reviewers confirmed a significant overlap between the two papers.
-
Publication Notices: A notice of duplication was published in Journal B, disclosing the redundant publication to the readership. The authors' reply was also published alongside the notice to provide a comprehensive view of the situation.
-
Sanctions: The editor of Journal A privately informed the authors that the journal would not accept any papers from them for a specified period of two years. This serves as a sanction for the redundant publication, reflecting the seriousness of the ethical breach.
-
Transparency in Publication: A notice of duplication and the authors' reply were published in Journal A as well, ensuring transparency regarding the issue and the authors' response.
-
Selective Withdrawal: Considering the redundancy, one of the papers needed to be withdrawn. The decision was made to withdraw the paper with the later publication date or the one that was incomplete, aligning with established best practices.
-
Avoiding Author Blacklisting: Instead of instituting a blacklist, the Editorial Boards opted for a targeted sanction. The decision to decline submissions from the authors for a specific period (two years) serves as a deterrent without permanently restricting their ability to contribute to the journals.
This approach reflects a balanced response, addressing the ethical breach while providing an opportunity for the authors to learn from the incident and adhere to proper publication practices in the future. The transparency in publishing notices ensures that readers are informed about the redundant publication, contributing to the overall integrity of the academic record.
The case underscores the importance of journals working collaboratively to address ethical issues, and COPE's guidance provided a valuable framework for the resolution of this particular case.