double take

From a PLoS ONE article on publication bias in psychology:

A random sample of 1000 English-language peer reviewed articles published in 2007 was drawn from the PsycINFO database. As keywords we used ‘English’ ‘peer reviewed’ ‘journal article’ in ‘year 2007’. Three articles could not be acquired, another article was a duplicate.

Author: jeremy

I am the Ethel and John Lindgren Professor of Sociology and a Faculty Fellow in the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.

4 thoughts on “double take”

  1. Really!? A duplicate? Barely discernible derivative, I’ve seen. Duplicate, I have not. All are a disappointment. But there’s an antidote: reading. Gratefully I recognize that more than once reviewers have noted the substantial overlap between articles in review and the published literature.

    Like

  2. Couldn’t a duplicate be that a paper was published in a journal and then published in an edited volume-type publication that would also be in PsychINFO? I know that this is a large problem in Google Scholar. I think that it might say more about the problems with how databases index articles than the (numerous) publication problems in academic journals.

    Like

  3. What Mike said. As one who spends a lot of time working through indexed databases of publications for a recent project, it’s baffling the number of times/ways the same things will show up in the same (purportedly cleaned) database. In reading that, it definitely came across to me as a duplicate entry of a single publication, not a duplicate publication.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s