What is Redundant Publications? | eSupport for Research | RPE02: L-06 | Dr. Akash Bhoi

Redundant publication is defined as publishing a paper that substantially overlaps with an already published article—often by reusing large portions of the same work without proper acknowledgment or permission. The core problem isn’t just academic dishonesty; it wastes peer-review resources, distorts the scientific record, and can trigger retraction later. When reviewers and editors spend time evaluating overlapping submissions, the process consumes journal space and reviewer effort that could go to genuinely new findings. Overlapping publications also skew evidence synthesis, making meta-analyses less reliable because the same underlying data or results may be counted multiple times.

The transcript breaks redundant practices into several misconduct categories. Duplicate publication involves taking the full set of components from a previously published work—described as copying or “cloning” so that all seven elements remain intact—then publishing again without acknowledging the source or obtaining permission from the copyright holder. Plagiarism is treated as a different failure mode: copied sections appear with some alterations, but the original source is not properly cited, meaning the author fails to give credit to the actual manuscript or origin. Salami slicing is another unethical pattern where one study is artificially divided into multiple smaller papers (the “seven components” are split so that several articles can be produced) primarily to inflate publication counts rather than to advance distinct scientific questions.

A key nuance is that overlap can vary in degree, and the transcript illustrates three scenarios using the same-author context. If two papers share only minimal overlap—such as overlapping ideas but not overlapping data—proper citation is still required, and the practice should be corrected to avoid misconduct. If overlap is substantial (roughly 60–70% or 70–75% in the examples), both ideas and data overlap enough that the author must choose the appropriate route and avoid publishing redundant material. If overlap is essentially complete (near 100%), the transcript emphasizes that it must be avoided because it effectively becomes duplicate publication and raises copyright concerns.

The discussion then distinguishes related concepts: redundant publication/duplicate publication centers on submitting substantially similar work to another journal without permission and without acknowledging the source. Simultaneous publication refers to submitting the same manuscript to two or more journals at the same time, which can lead to complaints when review requests arrive for the same paper at multiple venues. Multiple publication is framed as submitting more than one manuscript while earlier submissions are still pending—such as sending a second submission before receiving a response to the first.

Despite these strict rules, the transcript notes exceptions when reuse is properly authorized. If a copyright holder grants permission—such as for images, definitions, or equations—the author can reuse and cite the material, but must also obtain editor approval from both the original journal and the republishing journal. For self-plagiarism (reusing one’s own previously published material), the transcript stresses the need for approval from both parties and full citation of the primary publication, including acknowledgment to the relevant institution when used in thesis or final report writing.

Finally, practical “do’s and don’ts” are offered to prevent accidental misconduct: avoid replicating content from other published papers; don’t share unpublished preliminary reports with media or agencies without journal approval; when quoting prior text, use quotation marks and cite the source; ensure each manuscript addresses a distinct question; cross-reference related manuscripts; and disclose related prior publications in the cover letter with copies of the submitted papers to support transparency. The overall message is that awareness and proper permissions protect authors from retraction risk and protect the peer-review system from avoidable waste.