Scientometric and publication malpractices. The appearance of globalization in biomedical publishing

: Attention is drawn to publication and scientometric malpractices utilized by biomedical authors who do not adhere to the accepted ethical norms. The difference between duplicate/redundant and bilingual publications is defined. In the course of discussion of the manipulations that may be observed in the field of scientometry, it is pointed out that abstract of congress lectures/posters can not be taken into consideration for scientometric purposes even if such abstracts are published in journals with impact factors. A further behavioral form is likewise regarded as unacceptable from the aspect of publication ethics: when a physician who has participated in a multicentre, randomized clinical trial receives recognition (in an appendix or in an acknowledgement of an article) as having contributed data, but assesses this appreciation as co-authorship and thereby attempts to augment the value of his or her publication activity. The effects of globalization on biomedical publication activity are considered, and evidence is provided that the rapidly spreading electronic publication for a give rise to new types of ethical dilemmas. It is recommended that, in the current age of Anglo-American globalization, greater emphasis should be placed on the development of medical publication in the mother tongue (Hungarian).