A submitted paper with five authors from the same institution and department raised concerns when a reviewer discovered that four tables in the manuscript were identical to those recently published by the same authors in another journal. Despite being rejected for publication due to this duplication and other reasons, the authors did not respond to the editor's inquiries seeking an explanation.
As per the journal's clear Instructions to Authors stating that submitted papers must report unpublished work not under consideration elsewhere, the editor, after receiving no response from the authors, considered disqualifying them from submitting to the journal for three years. The editor also contemplated informing the departmental dean and the editor of the journal where the data were previously published to alert them to possible future practices by these authors.
Upon seeking COPE advice, it was suggested to contact the authors a third time, allowing them the opportunity to present a legitimate reason for the duplication. The authors were to be given a deadline for response, and obtaining a receipt confirming the email delivery was recommended. COPE cautioned against banning all authors, suggesting a more targeted approach, perhaps focusing on the corresponding author, as other authors might be unaware of the misconduct.
In the follow-up, the editor discovered additional instances of duplication involving the same first author in two papers with similar titles. Approximately 90% of the data in these papers were identical, along with similar text and references. The editor informed the other journal's editors, leading to joint decisions to retract both papers for improper submission.
Upon contacting all authors a third time, only the first author responded, expressing remorse for the unintentional ethical issue. The first author explained that the studies published in both journals were part of a larger experiment, and due to the time taken for analysis, they decided to publish the new results separately. When all results were compiled, the decision was made to publish both sets of results in a new paper. The first author apologized and promised not to repeat such behavior.
Ongoing discussions with the other journal's editors resulted in the decision to retract both papers. The editor informed the authors of the retraction and the decision to bar them from submitting to the journal for three years. The Faculty Dean was also notified, providing a detailed account of both attempted and successful duplicate publications. A note of retraction will be published, explaining the reason for the action taken.