Endoscopy 2018; 50(05): 463-465
DOI: 10.1055/a-0582-9274
Editorial
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Ethics in publication, part 2: duplicate publishing, salami slicing, and large retrospective multicenter case series

Michael B. Wallace
,
Deborah Bowman
,
Hilary Hamilton-Gibbs
,
Peter D. Siersema
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 March 2018 (eFirst)

Abbreviations

COI: conflict of interest
COPE: International Committee on Publication Ethics
ICMJE: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
IRB: institutional review board
LAMS: lumen-apposing metal stent
POEM: per-oral endoscopic myotomy
SAE: serious adverse event
Publication Information

This article is being published jointly in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Endoscopy.

Copyright © 2018 by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Georg Thieme Verlag KG

The goals of scientific publishing – to advance our knowledge of disease mechanisms and treatments – sometimes come into conflict with the professional and personal benefits of publishing. Authors may feel pressure to publish as many scientific articles as possible to advance their careers and reputations. It is the role of journal editors to ensure that scientific articles minimize this conflict by ensuring that each provides a “substantial new contribution to their field.”[1]

In this article, we present the second part of an ongoing series focused on ethical principles in publication in the field of gastroenterological endoscopy [2] [3]. We review what constitutes duplicate publication, “salami slicing,” and ethical concerns in large multicenter retrospective case series.