Assess overlapping papers with a report map, not a similarity score

1. Identify the kind of overlap being considered

ICMJE distinguishes simultaneous submission, undisclosed substantial duplicate publication and potentially useful reports from the same dataset. Shared-data papers should add substantially and cite related work; the editor assesses whether that contribution warrants separate publication.

Begin with a factual description: which document is being assessed, what related material exists and where each version stands. A public preprint, a conference abstract, a submitted full manuscript and an accepted article are different states. Write the state beside the identifier and date checked. If status is unknown, ask the responsible author rather than converting an incomplete search into a statement that nothing else exists.

Reference: ICMJE: overlapping publications

2. Build a map that follows participants and questions

Give each related report a stable internal label. Compare the research question, source population, recruitment dates, sample, outcome definitions, follow-up period, analysis and main conclusion. List reused tables or figures separately. When a report contains a subset of a larger study, explain how the subset was selected and why that selection matters to its question.

For a team working on several reports, one person can maintain the map while each responsible analyst checks the relevant row. Keep identifiers needed for comparison, not an unnecessary copy of identifiable participant data. Add a link to the protocol or analysis plan when available and say when the proposed analysis was developed. A new file name or a different first author does not establish a new scientific contribution.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

3. Compare three fictional report pairs

In pair A, a published paper reports missed visits among 240 adults recruited at one clinic during a stated year. A proposed paper uses the same 240 adults, outcome and follow-up, with renamed tables and a different title. Its draft contains no reference to the first report. The map identifies extensive shared content and missing disclosure; the team needs to explain the additional contribution before proceeding. The number 240 is fictional, not a suggested sample size.

In pair B, a planned second report from that cohort examines travel barriers using interviews with a clearly described subset. It cites the first report and explains the distinct qualitative question and selection process. That is a reason for substantive assessment, not automatic permission to publish separately. In pair C, two groups independently analyse a public dataset using different questions and methods. Shared data alone does not establish that either group copied the other.

4. Explain related work before submission

ICMJE asks authors to disclose closely related reports and provide relevant copies. Its guidance does not automatically exclude a full report following a preliminary abstract or preprint; the target journal’s policy still matters.

Write a short cover-letter paragraph naming the related material, its status and the relationship to the submitted work. Point to the manuscript passage where readers can understand the connection. Avoid burying the only explanation in an attachment with an unclear name. If a collaborator has another report under consideration, coordinate the explanation so both offices receive accurate, consistent information.

Check the final submission package after uploading. A reference removed during shortening or a supplementary file omitted from the portal can erase an otherwise careful disclosure. Retain the submitted cover letter and file list as the record of what the editor actually received.

Reference: ICMJE: overlapping publications

5. Treat translated republication as a distinct question

ICMJE describes secondary-publication conditions: both editors’ agreement, faithful representation, a different readership, and clear identification and citation of the primary report. Consult the full conditions; translation alone does not make new research.

Ask the relevant journals about the exact proposed version and resolve permissions through the responsible parties. Keep an approved translation of an already published article separate from translation of a team’s original, unpublished draft. A language editor cannot decide the publication status by changing the language, and a disclosure sentence alone does not supply missing editorial agreement.

Reference: ICMJE: overlapping publications

6. Keep the assessment and unresolved facts together

Record what was compared, which explanations were received, the policy applied and the decision-maker. If a case needs institutional investigation or another journal’s involvement, use the applicable confidential procedure. The report map supports that process; it is not a substitute for it. Do not publish an allegation while the basic identity or chronology remains uncertain.

Before closing the file, check whether the decision requires a clearer citation, revised disclosure, a combined report or a different action specified by the editor. Preserve the distinction between a proposed correction and one actually implemented. Future readers should be able to see the relationship among the research reports without reconstructing a private correspondence trail.

Questions for a practical final check

• Related reports have identifiers and checked statuses.
• Shared participants and outcomes are explicit.
• The additional contribution is explained.
• The editor receives the related material.
• Translation is not presented as new research by default.
• The decision record preserves unresolved facts.