Duplicate publications: redundancy in plastic surgery literature.

The practice of duplicate publication has been condemned widely in the scientific community and several studies have been conducted to establish the level of the problem in various surgical fields. A retrospective review of original articles from the British Journal of Plastic Surgery and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery during 2000 was conducted, using Medline (PubMed). A total of 431 abstracts were screened, from which 27 index articles related to 33 'suspected redundant' publications. Further evaluation was carried out by comparing the full text versions of these articles and assigning a grade of non-dual, dual, potentially dual and 'salami-slicing'. Only four suspect articles were confirmed as having some degree of redundancy, and these related to three index articles (3/431, <1%). The incidence of duplication in plastic surgery literature seems to be much lower compared to other surgical specialties, providing reassurance for reviewers, editors and readers of these journals.     

Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg?

BACKGROUND: A redundant publication is one which duplicates previous, simultaneous, or future publications by the same author or group or, alternatively, could have been combined with the latter into one paper. As there is no information about the extent of this problem in the surgical literature, we set out to assess the incidence, spectrum, and salient characteristics of redundant publications in 3 leading surgical journals. METHODS: Original articles (excluding reviews, editorials, abstracts, and letters) published during 1998 in the journals Surgery, The British Journal of Surgery, and Archives of Surgery were searched by using the on-line search engine PUBMED. Each original article was scrutinized to identify redundancy by combining the names of the first, second, and last authors with a few key words from the title. Papers were defined as "suspected" redundant publications if they were found to address the same topic as the "index" article and shared some or most of the elements of methodology, results, or conclusions. The full versions of all suspected papers were retrieved and compared with the index articles. A grading system was developed to define several types of redundant publications: A. "dual"; B. "potentially dual"; C. "salami-slicing." RESULTS: A total of 660 articles were screened. There were 92 index articles (14%) leading to 147 suspected papers found in other journals, representing some potential form of a redundant publication. The vast majority of suspected papers were published within approximately a year of the index paper and were not cited by the latter. Most (69%) of the suspected papers were also published in surgical journals. Only 12 (8.1%) appeared in, or originated from, a "local-foreign" journal. Twenty (13.6%) of the suspected papers met the criteria for dual publications, 50 (34%) for potentially dual publications, and 77 (52.4%) were considered products of salami-slicing. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 1 in every 6 original articles published in leading surgical journals represents some form of redundancy. Current on-line search technology provides an effective tool for identifying and tracing such publications, but it is not used routinely as part of the peer review process. Redundancies occur in several well-defined patterns; the phenomenon is widespread, and it cuts across the entire spectrum of surgeons in the United States and abroad. Redundant publications must be recognized not as a mere nuisance but as a real threat to the quality and intellectual impact of surgical publishing.     

High-impact articles in hand surgery

Background

There have been few attempts to identify classic papers within the hand surgery literature. This study used citation analysis to identify and characterize the top 50 highly cited hand surgery articles published in six peer-reviewed journals.

Methods

The 50 most highly cited hand surgery articles were identified in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) American, JBJS British, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Journal of Hand Surgery (JHS) American, JHS British/European, and Hand. Articles were evaluated for citations per year, surgical/anatomical topic, and type of study. Clinical studies were further sub-categorized by level of evidence. The distribution of topics was compared with all indexed hand surgery articles. The educational relevance was assessed via comparison with lists of “classic” papers.

Results

The most common subjects were distal radius fracture, carpal tunnel syndrome, and flexor tendon repair. There was moderate correlation between the distribution of these topics and all indexed hand surgery articles (rho = 0.71). There were 31 clinical studies, of which 16 were therapeutic, ten were prognostic, and five were diagnostic. These articles assessed the outcomes of an intervention, described an anatomical/functional observation, introduced an innovation, presented a discovery/classification, or validated a questionnaire. There were only three randomized trials. Using citations per year to control for the influence of time since publication, 36 articles were consistently highly cited. Twenty-three articles were on Stern’s Selected Readings in Hand Surgery, considered important in education.

Conclusions

The top 50 highly cited articles in hand surgery reflect the most common clinical, scientific, and educational efforts of the field.     

Duplicate publication in the field of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery.

OBJECTIVE: This study establishes the approximate prevalence and patterns of duplicate publication in the medical literature in the specialty of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: All of the authors and articles published in the American Medical Association Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery were identified and listed for an 8-year period. During this time, 1965 authors published 1082 articles in the Archives, and this same set of authors published a total of almost 50,000 articles during the 12-year period between January 1977 and December 1988. Of the same set of 1965 authors, we picked 1000 at random and found that they had published a total of 24,353 articles. The titles of these articles were then screened for similar titles, and when similarities were noted, the complete articles were obtained when possible and compared for the degree and pattern of duplicate publication. RESULTS: Of the 1000 authors studied, we found that 228 authors had published 938 articles with similar titles. We were able to obtain the full copy of 886 (94%) of the 938 articles in question, which were written by 226 (99%) of the 228 authors. We found that in the case of 25 authors, there was no duplication despite the similar titles, but in the case of 201 (20% of the 1000) authors, 644 articles were published with some degree of duplication (1.8% duplication rate). CONCLUSIONS: The most common duplicate publication involves sequential publication of very similar data and conclusions. Duplicate publications failed to reference prior articles by the same author 32% of the time or referenced the prior articles only partially (11% of the time). Artificial segmentation of a single study into multiple arbitrary segments composed 20% of the duplicate publication. Duplicate publication across different specialties was noted to account for 4% of the instances. Most of the authors duplicated only once or twice, and most duplicators do reference their prior publications. SIGNIFICANCE: Duplicate publication is an example of inappropriate academic conduct. Because it tarnishes the reputation of the duplicating author and represents an unfair practice in terms of displacing the work of others, efforts should continue to educate authors, particularly young academicians, to avoid the practice of duplicate publication.     

Observational analysis of BOA free-papers (2001): from presentation to publication and comparison with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS)

Aim

The objectives of this study were to: determine the presentation to publication conversion rate (PPCR) in peer-reviewed indexed journals of free papers and posters presented at 12-14th September 2001 British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) annual meeting and to compare the publication rate with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) meeting in 2001.

Methodology

We looked at all presentations including both podium and poster presentations at British Orthopaedic Association meeting held in 2001 and assessed for subsequent publication as full-text article with a fixed PubMed search protocol. Once the abstract was identified as being published, we noted the name of the journal, citation, and time to presentation. The level of evidence was assigned for each abstract along the guidelines published by the centre for evidence-based medicine, Oxford, UK. This conversion rate was compared with the presentation to publication rate for the AAOS meeting in 2001.

Results

A total of 179 abstracts were presented at the 2001 BOA meeting. 65 of these were published as full-text articles in 30 different journals. The overall publication rate was 36.3%. The publication rate of the papers presented at AAOS annual meeting 2001 was 49% (367/756). The mean time from presentation to publication was 18.6 months (±9.4 months). Three fourths of them were published after 2 years of presentations (63% for AAOS). Majority of studies were either level III or IV. 14 full-text articles were published in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British (JBJS Br) and 8 in the Injury Journal.

Conclusions

This is the first study reporting the publication rate of presentations for BOA meeting and comparing it with the publication rate of AAOS meeting in 2001. The publication rate of BOA presentations is much lower than the AAOS meeting. We believe the publication rate is an important tool in judging the quality of research work and the reputation of a scientific meeting with higher conversion rates suggesting better quality. Thus, more stringent selection criteria need to be introduced so that the selected abstracts can withstand peer-view for publication as full-text articles.     

Strategies in reconfiguration of hand injuries management during COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a re-organisation of care provided by the Trauma and Orthopaedic services in the United Kingdom. The National Health Service England (NHSE) speciality guide forms the primary responses to this pandemic, whilst British Society for the Surgery of Hand (BSSH) provides sub-specialty guidance on management of hand trauma. The orthopaedic community’s responsibility of providing a continuity of care for patients has to be balanced with measures to reduce risk of viral transmission (e.g. reduce face to face consultations) and also protect ion of both the patients and staff.We highlight the strategies applied whilst reconfiguration of hand injury management following publication of COVID-19 British Society for the Surgery of Hand and Indian Orthopaedic Association (IOA) guidelines.     

Membership history of the ASSH: 1946–1970

The American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) was organized in 1946. The Founders held the first Scientific Meeting in 1947. The original qualifications for membership were: (1) clinical experience; (2) recommendation by a member of ASSH; (3) published peer-review articles; (4) presentation of a paper at the Scientific Program of the ASSH. Only a limited number of surgeons met these requirements early in their career. Thus, emphasis was on the category of Associate Members who had all the privileges of the ASSH members except for voting and holding office. Also, as the number of residents taking Hand Fellowships increased, the number of potential members in the ASSH necessarily increased. Since a Certificate of Added Qualification (CAQ) became a requirement for membership, the qualifications for membership in ASSH remained stringent. Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand     

History of the journal of hand surgery: 1976-1999

This paper is a brief history of The Journal of Hand Surgery from its founding in July 1976 through the third issue published in July 1999. An analysis of the 3,713 scientific articles published is done relative to type, content, and country of origin. The persons responsible for the journal are named and other features of the Journal are discussed. (J Hand Surg 2000; 25A:5-13. Copyright 2000 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand.).     

Hand injuries during hand surgery: a survey of intraoperative sharp injuries of the hand among hand surgeons

An e-mail survey comprising 19 questions was directed towards members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) to investigate the prevalence and nature of intraoperative injuries to hand surgeons during hand surgery. The responses were collected, statistical analysis was done and trends were extrapolated. Two hundred members of the ASSH completed the e-mail survey. A hand surgeon in practice for greater than 10 years has a 97% chance of sustaining an intraoperative "sharps" injury. The injury is self-inflicted (88%) in most cases and the index finger (94%) of the left hand (87%) is the most likely site. The suture needle was the cause in 91% of cases. Awareness of the risks and factors associated with hand injuries during hand surgery and adopting intraoperative measures are important strategies for preventing these potentially serious and life-threatening accidents.     

《中华手外科杂志》引文变迁分析

目的 了解我国手外科学领域论文引文的一般规律和著者吸收利用科技文献的实际情况。方法 利用文献计量方法和引文分析法,对《中华手外科杂志》5年（1995年－1999年）的论文引文的平均值、引文的类型等进行统计学分析。结果 论文平均引文量为5．4条,中外文的比例为1：1．3,期刊总引文量的87．1％,引文自引率为11．0％。被引文献峰值（9．8％）是在发表后的第4年,文献半衰期为6－7年。结论 期刊是手外科学论文的主要引文源,按照布拉德福的文献主散规律,找出8种核心期刊而《中华手外科杂志》在其中占首位。     

Elective hand surgery in patients taking warfarin

We reviewed 22 patients who had undergone either carpal tunnel decompression or release of Dupuytren's contractures while anticoagulated with warfarin. All patients continued with their usual anticoagulant regime over the period of operation, provided that the international normalized ratio (INR) was 3 or less. There was no abnormal intraoperative or postoperative bleeding in any patient. Journal of Hand Surgery (British and European volume, 2004).     

Joseph H. Boyes, MD, 1905-1995: a driving force in American hand surgery

Joseph H. Boyes, MD (1905-1995) was an important figure in American Hand Surgery. He was a pivotal founder of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH), he trained a number of hand fellows, he was active for many years at national and international hand meetings, and he was the founding editor of the Journal of Hand Surgery.     

A brief history of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery had its origins in the Transactions of the American Orthopedic Association, which first were published in 1889. In 1903, the Transactions of the American Orthopedic Association, Volume 16, became the first volume of the American Journal of Orthopedic Surgery, still under the sponsorship of the American Orthopedic Association. In 1919, the word American was dropped from the title and the Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery became the official publication of the newly formed British Orthopaedic Association and the American Orthopedic Association. The name was changed to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in 1921. Shortly after the founding of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in 1933, The Journal became the official organ of the academy; however, ownership of The Journal remained with the American Orthopaedic Association. The British volume appeared in 1948. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery became an independent, not-for-profit corporation in 1954. The Journal, which continues to be a leader in the area of orthopaedic publication, began publishing the full text on compact disk in January 1992, the full text in electronic form through BRS/Saunders in 1995, and the full text on The Journal's website in December 1999.     

One Hundred Citation Classics in General Surgical Journals

The number of times an article is cited in scientific journals reflects its impact on a specific biomedical field or specialty and reflects the impact of the authors’ creativity. Our objective was to identify and analyze the characteristics of the 100 most frequently cited articles published in journals dedicated to general surgery and its close subspecialties. Using the database (1945–1995) of the Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information, 1500 articles cited 100 times and more were identified and the top 100 articles selected for further analysis. The 100 articles were published between 1931 and 1990, with more than two-thirds of them published after 1960. The mean number of citations per article was 405, (range 278–1013). Altogether, 84 of the articles originated from North America (USA 78, Canada 6) and the UK (12). New York State led the list of U.S. states with 14, and Harvard and Columbia University led the list of institutions with 6 articles each. The 100 articles were published in 10 surgical journals led by theAnnals of Surgery (n = 40), followed bySurgery (n = 15), Archives of Surgery (n = 12), Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics (n = 11), and British Journal of Surgery (n = 10). A total of 80 of the articles reported clinical experiences, 6 were clinical review articles, and 14 dealt with basic science. Eighteen articles reported a new surgical technique and six a prosthetic device. Gastrointestinal surgery and trauma and critical care led the list of the surgical fields, each with 25 articles, followed by vascular surgery (n = 15). Thirty-four persons authored two or more of the top-cited articles. This list of the top-cited papers identifies seminal contributions and their originators, facilitating the understanding and discourse of modern surgical history and offering surgeons hints about what makes a contribution a "top-cited classic." To produce such a "classic" the surgeon and his or her group must come up with a clinical or nonclinical innovation, observation, or discovery that has a long-standing effect on the way we practice—be it operative or nonoperative. Based on our findings, to be well cited such a contribution should be published in the English language in a high-impact journal. Moreover, it is more likely to resonant loudly if it originates from a North American or British "ivory tower."     

UK guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma.

These guidelines for management of cutaneous melanoma present evidence-based guidance for treatment, with identification of the strength of evidence available at the time of preparation of the guidelines, and a brief overview of epidemiological aspects, diagnosis and investigation. To reflect the collaborative process for the UK, they are subject to dual publication in the British Journal of Dermatology and the British Journal of Plastic Surgery.     

《中华手外科杂志》1995年至1999年的引文分析

目的 对最近５卷《中华手外科杂志》论文的引文进行分析,以提供最有应用价值的手外科文献资料。方法 对１９９５年至１９９９年２１期《中华手外科杂志》中主要栏目的７３２篇论文的引文进行统计学分析。采用专家和读者问卷调查法,推荐熟悉和有价值的文献。结果 ２１期杂志中刊登引文的论文共４６７篇,引文量２４０８条。引文语种以英文、中文为主。引文类型以期刊文章为主,自引率呈逐年递增的趋势。引文核心文献为《中华手外