{"id":144053,"date":"2014-02-07T13:27:26","date_gmt":"2014-02-07T15:27:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/?p=144053"},"modified":"2014-02-07T13:27:26","modified_gmt":"2014-02-07T15:27:26","slug":"duplicates-found-removed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/duplicates-found-removed\/","title":{"rendered":"Duplicates found, but not removed"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Mario Mali\u010dki, researcher at the University of Split, in Croatia, presented a study last month at a symposium on peer review held in Chicago, in which he tracked the destination of duplicate articles whose findings had been published in more than one journal in a type of improper conduct that is intended to inflate an author\u2019s productivity. Mali\u010dki and his group cross-checked the registrations of 1,011 articles in the U.S. National Library of Medicine considered to be duplicates against records of investigations of duplication conducted by scientific journals. They uncovered a total of 175 papers whose findings were published at least twice. They also discovered that only 23 of these articles had been removed by the journals that had originally published them. The others are still in those magazines. \u201cIf these articles are cases of bad conduct, why not remove them?\u201d Mali\u010dki asked at the event, according to the blog <i>Science Insider<\/i>, from the journal <i>Science<\/i>. Elizabeth Wager, former chairperson of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), based in the United Kingdom, said she was surprised. \u201cThe editors of the scientific journals should be responsible for cleaning up this mess,\u201d she stated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Duplicates found, but not removed","protected":false},"author":475,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[155],"tags":[230],"coauthors":[785],"class_list":["post-144053","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-good-practices","tag-ethics"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144053","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/475"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=144053"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144053\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144053"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=144053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}