Recently in The Scientist ("Vigilant Science Journal Editors Fight Redundancy," March 8, 1993, page 1), writer Paul McCarthy focused on a widespread and apparently growing concern among publishing professionals: the attempt by some scientists, as McCarthy put it, to "add heft to their c.v.'s" by getting two or more articles into print that are based on a single research finding. He made the point that today's highly competitive job market has exacerbated the ongoing duplicate publishing problem by making many of these investigators downright gluttonous in their efforts to rack up long lists of publishing credits.

The article correctly pointed out that the problem is by no means a new one. This situation has existed for a long time; it can't simply be chalked off as a transient byproduct of a depressed job market, reduced grants, or the increasing number of scientific journals being published.

Actually, the problem of redundant...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?