On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980‐2007)
|On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980‐2007)
|Université de Montréal. Faculté des arts et des sciences. École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information
|The issue of duplicate publications has received a lot of attention in the medical literature, but much less in the information science community. This paper aims at analyzing the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications across all fields of research between 1980 and 2007, using a definition of duplicate papers based on their metadata. It shows that in all fields combined, the prevalence of duplicates is one out of two-thousand papers, but is higher in the natural and medical sciences than in the social sciences and humanities. A very high proportion (>85%) of these papers are published the same year or one year apart, which suggest that most duplicate papers were submitted simultaneously. Furthermore, duplicate papers are generally published in journals with impact factors below the average of their field and obtain a lower number of citations. This paper provides clear evidence that the prevalence of duplicate papers is low and, more importantly, that the scientific impact of such papers is below average.
|On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980-2007) Larivière, V., Gingras, Y. (2010). On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980-2007). Journal of Documentation, 66(2):179-190.
|Version acceptée / Accepted Manuscript
|Journal of documentation
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
This document disseminated on Papyrus is the exclusive property of the copyright holders and is protected by the Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42). It may be used for fair dealing and non-commercial purposes, for private study or research, criticism and review as provided by law. For any other use, written authorization from the copyright holders is required.