Duplicate publication of headache paper earns Expression of Concern, erratum

A 2003 paper is now subject to an Expression of Concern after its author reused a lot of its material in a 2007 paper.

Here’s the Expression of Concern for “New therapeutic target in primary headaches – blocking the CGRP receptor” by Lars Edvinsson of the University of Copehagen:

It has been brought to the attention of the Publishers of Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets that since publishing the above article in EOTT in June 2003 [1], that a lot of the content was reproduced in another paper [2]. This includes almost identical abstracts, headings and whole paragraphs.

While authors are free to re-use material and figures previously published, this must be clearly stated and referenced appropriately. In this case the authors of the article should have made it clear that this material was not original and cited the source.

The Editors of CNS & Neurological Disorders – Drug Targets (formerly Current Drug Targets – CNS & Neurological Disorders) were informed of the outcome of our investigation, but have decided not to withdraw the later review. The Journal will, however, publish a Note (‘Erratum’) alerting readers to the fact that the two articles contain a substantial amount of duplicated material.

The Publishers are issuing this Expression of Concern to alert EOTT readers to the fact that the CNS & Neurological Disorders – Drug Targets article contains redundant material.

Bibliography

1. Edvinsson L. New therapeutic target in primary headaches – blocking the CGRP receptor. Expert Opin Ther Targets 2003;7(3):377-83

2. Edvinsson L, Petersen KA. CGRP-receptor antagonism in migraine treatment. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets 2007;6:240-6

The article has been cited 36 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

The paper in CNS & Neurological Disorders – Drug Targets — a Bentham journal — is not yet marked with an erratum. It has been cited ten times.

It’s unusual, in our experience, for an original paper that has been duplicated — in other words, the earlier version — to be marked at all. Usually it’s the later duplicated paper that is retracted or subjected to an Expression of Concern.