This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Original Article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • JAMA Classics  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Commentary by Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH

JAMA. 2009;301(13):1382-1383.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Read lt Again: It's Good for You

Germaine Roman

JAMA. 1985;253(14):2104

Most of you believe that a scientific article should be published only once, in one journal. You are, in fact, the self-righteous majority who tries to stifle repetitive publication. The free-thinking individuals who reject such arbitrary rules and manage to break them, in valiant defiance of the copyright law, are a small, scattered, and unorganized group, until now too weak to defend their position publicly. In all fairness, repetitive publication deserves a hearing. Here are my arguments in favor of it.

Wider Dissemination of Information. This is a fairly obvious advantage. An article appearing in multiple journals aimed at the same audience is less likely to be missed by those cursory readers and hasty scanners out there. The author of a multiply published article will be able to have the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?