We run a local journal in English. Now all of our articles can be found easily by searching Google. So, the concept of "local journal" is fading in the viewpoint of investigators who search for articles of their interest. Even journals in other languages can be a part of the international resource of scientific publications if they have a Web site with English abstracts or they are indexed elsewhere on the Internet.
 

We are facing a common scenario these days; the authors send their manuscripts simultaneously to other journals on the pretext that they are local ones in another language, or that they have different readers and those who may not know English should benefit from the studies done in their own country. The latter is unjustifiable as I presume that readers of an article in our journal have to read the works published in the most creditable journals worldwide, as well, if they want to do a research or just want to update their knowledge. So, they must know English! However, we cannot convince the authors or even editors and authorities in this regard that no local/international or English/non-English differentiation is applicable here. 

Here is the answer to my inquiry from the ISI:

"One of the criteria for inclusion in our products is that a journal publishes articles that have not been published elsewhere, regardless of the language." 

The ICMJE mentions the issue as follows:

"III.D.3. Acceptable Secondary Publication

Secondary publication […] in the same or another language, especially in other countries, is justifiable, and can be beneficial, provided all of the following conditions are met.

1. The authors have received approval from the editors of both journals; the editor concerned with secondary publication must have a photocopy, reprint, or manuscript of the primary version.

2. The priority of the primary publication is respected by a publication interval of at least one week (unless specifically negotiated otherwise by both editors).

3. The paper for secondary publication is intended for a different group of readers; an abbreviated version could be sufficient.

4. The secondary version faithfully reflects the data and interpretations of the primary version.

5. The footnote on the title page of the secondary version informs readers, peers, and documenting agencies that the paper has been published in whole or in part and states the primary reference. A suitable footnote might read: "This article is based on a study first reported in the [title of journal, with full reference].""

I think even if all the above criteria are met, such double publications are not justifiable. We have articles that are now published in 2 journals. Both can be found by Google! Are there any more strict regulations? In my opinion, misinterpretation of the ICMJE's uniform requirements warrants a revision. 

I would be pleased to hear your comments.

Farhat Farrokhi
Executive Editor, Urology Journal
_____________________________________
There should be no problem publishing clinical research and advice in more than one language. There are 2 issues here:

1. Clinicians (who may be less fluent in English than biomedical researchers) need current knowledge to be available in their own language and that of their patients, so they can apply the knowledge promptly in their own clinical practice. This is a quality-of-care issue. 

2. Languages need to evolve to incorporate new medical terms, and new terms become disseminated and consolidated by their appearance in print. Current medical Spanish is plagued with import words and mistranslations of terms in English, and Spanish medical journals, sadly, sometimes publish texts written in something that might be called "medical Spanglish." This has resulted in much confusion among Spanish-speaking physicians and their patients—in other words, a breakdown of communication. This is a linguistic and cultural issue.

Just my opinion, but I feel that if ISI has an unrealistically narrow criteria for accepting journals in their database, we should teach ISI why this criterion is unhelpful to medical care and medical culture in non-English languages, rather than go along with them at the cost of sacrificing the creation and publication of medical knowledge in local languages. 

Karen
_____________________________________
I do appreciate my colleagues' opinions about the issue of this special kind of double publishing. We all have a great respect for our mother tongue and are responsible to promote it with proper scientific terminology. On the other hand, I acknowledge that patients also have the right to understand new findings in their own languages. But, what I pointed out was peer-reviewed journals and the fact that every single article must be indexed as only 1 reference. So in the ISI's viewpoint, it's rational for each article to have only 1 origin. This is not the issue of languages, but journals. I believe that sending a manuscript to 2 journals simultaneously cannot be justified regardless of their languages. Imagine that I send my paper to 1 English journal, 1 Persian, 2 French (one a local journal in Africa, another in France), etc. just because I want all people with different languages and in different places benefit from my study!!

Farhat Farrokhi