English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The issue of duplicate publications has received a lot of attention in themedical literature, but much less in the information science community. Thispaper aims at analyzing the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicatepublications across all fields of research between 1980 and 2007, using adefinition of duplicate papers based on their metadata. It shows that in allfields combined, the prevalence of duplicates is one out of two-thousandpapers, but is higher in the natural and medical sciences than in the socialsciences and humanities. A very high proportion (>85%) of these papers arepublished the same year or one year apart, which suggest that most duplicatepapers were submitted simultaneously. Furthermore, duplicate papers aregenerally published in journals with impact factors below the average of theirfield and obtain a lower number of citations. This paper provides clearevidence 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)