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 publication--intentional and otherwise--has been plaguing the science community for more than a quarter-century, and its presence certainly has not been confined to the United States. Its prevalence in Great Britain, for example, was the subject of a classic 1964 study by John Martyn, then research director of the Association of Special Libraries and Information Bureaux. In Martyn's survey, 25 percent of U.K. scientists reported unwitting duplication of research already reported in the literature (J. Martyn, "Unintentional duplication of research," New Scientist, 377:388, 1964).
To me, the problem of redundant and even plagiaristic publication was evident back ...
