I'm conducting a longitudinal study on several age groups and I'd like to publish the data from a transversal approach. However, if I do that, does it mean that I won't be allowed to use this data again in the big longitudinal study in three years ?
Surely there is a solution? Or maybe I'm wrong in assuming that I cannot re-use my data when they are integrated within a larger set ?
The Committee of Publication Ethics has a flow chart for editors that discusses how to deal with overlapping publications (http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/redundant%20publication%20A.pdf). As that makes clear there isn't necessary a problem with "Minor overlap with some
element of redundancy or legitimate re-analysis (e.g. sub-group/extended
follow-up/discussion aimed at different audience)" but any such publication should "secondary papers must refer to original". The issue with overlapping publication really arises where "Major overlap/redundancy (i.e. based on same data with identical or very similar findings and/or evidence authors have sought to hide redundancy e.g.
by changing title or author order or not citing previous papers)". It certainly doesn't appear that this would apply to your set of analyses.
If you have a look at big longitudinal study you'll see that data is quite often included in multiple papers. For example, a study might have a paper that describes the baseline data as well as subsequent analyses that look at the difference between baseline and the next timepoint (and so on). The key here would be that each paper have a different research question and that you are transparent in the way that you re-use data. As Nelson suggested, you would be likely to cite your previous work in subsequent papers.
On the limits and challendge of re-use data in subsequent article concern with total contextual need into logic presentation. Studies at hand should be in principle imperative condition. As research methodogies could manner flow of logical verifiable significant information. During limits and scope of studies article focus towars uncertainty principle by Prof. Stephen Hawking book "brief history of time". For negative data may be use as a guide for self-direction at quest in truth. In research to be clarify and verify avoid personal bias such as opinon or unverified second hand data. Any citation have a strong evidence upon the article. Second point to consider, Propaganda data obstacle developmental research goals result into victims of ideologies rather scientific career. As illustration in the field of evolution at US soil band teaching. Darwin's evolutionary theories resisted by religious ideologies. Science dawn fall since man's fallicies. Third point to consider is the lack of supportive data. Since comparable data may be use as standard formal norn. Implies different task adaptation when balancing information. Finally to consider is censorship data suppression in government dictatorship.
Both Steve and Emily have answered this question very well. What I have observed among social researchers is that they use the same data, i.e., the same source material, for different articles with different foci. For example, the same data can form the basis for an article on the condition of children in European refugee camps, an article on education and health in the same refugee camps, an article on the differences in the treatment of these children in two different countries, etc.
So, yes, as long as the writer either uses the data very differently or indicates his or her use of the data in the text or in a citation (e.g., "see [author] 2011"), of course he or she can use the same data. Indeed, one professor always tells his students, "Don't just pick a research topic, because that topic may result in only one paper. Instead, ask a good research question, because that will help you create a research design leading to multiple papers, for different kinds of journals, from the same research."
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology