Duplicate/redundant publication is most certainly improper when done deceptively. Most agree that if the editors, peer reviewers, and end users of the information are informed of the overlap, appropriate decisions can be made.6–9 However, covert submission and publication of previously published material are deceiving to those reading and applying the information contained in the article. There are three major problems with this practice: deception and ethical issues, wasting of resources, and a negative impact on clinical decision making and future research. Editors and readers of original research reports published in peer-reviewed journals want assurance that new and important information is presented. Otherwise, readers may incorrectly conclude that new information is being presented, leading to a skewing of their evidence base (because readers assume that they are reading two different studies). The practice of publishing duplicate or redundant articles has the potential to tarnish a journal’s reputation, reduce its ability to attract good articles, and may also represent infringement of copyright law. Duplicate publication also wastes resources in terms of time, paper, and electronic databases as well as inflating an already overwhelming volume of literature. Most importantly, duplicate publications can affect clinical decision making. Tramer et al12 performed a systematic review and observed that 17% of the reports were duplicates, 28% of patient data were duplicates, and that as a result there was a 23% overestimation of effectiveness. Duplicate reporting can also skew the evidence base of basic research; it exaggerates the significance of the work in a qualitative manner and may skew the reader’s perceived validity and reliability of the methods and results.