Vu I1 HEPATOLOGY, like most journals in the field of biomedical research, deplores the pollution of the literature that results from the redundant publication of the same, or nearly the same, data set on multiple occasions. Our views in this regard are not arbitrary but are based on a compelling logic that was spelled out in detail in an earlier editorial in these pages (1). As stated there, redundant publication wastes the already strained resources of the peer review system, including the time and energy of editors and reviewers and the financial resources of journal editorial offices; distorts the perceptions of all but the most sophisticated readers concerning the extent of the actual knowledge base; and perverts the surprisingly and unfortunately unsophisticated reward system in academic biomedical science, a system that continues to find it easier to make quantitative rather than qualitative assessments of productivity and achievement. By assisting individuals to advance in a field with serious responsibilities on the basis of appearances rather than substance, redundant publication threatens the respect for academic excellence that is the basis of the profession's public support.
Despite our well-publicized position on this issue, we are still troubled from time to time by those who do not play by the rules. A recent episode involving the redundant publication of similar articles one month apart in HEPATOLOGY and Transplantation is such an example. The basic facts are presented in the box adjacent to this editorial. The sequence of events was as follows. The HEPATOLOGY version of the paper was submitted on December 22, 1992, with appropriate assurances, signed by all the authors, that the manuscript was not under consideration elsewhere, as well as a duly executed copyright assignment form transferring copyright of the material to the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.