Sir.—I enjoyed reading the editorial entitled "Duplicate Publication Is Boring" by Ms Radulescu.1 I agree with Ms Radulescu that academic appointment, tenure, and the related economic rewards may hinge on the length, if not the quality, of one's bibliography. However, it is not always the author's intention to lengthen his/her bibliography or to pad his/her curriculum vitae by duplicate publication. I wonder whose fault it is—should blame rest with the author or the editor?
I have had more than 70 publications in various medical journals in the last 12 years, and I would like to share with you some of my personal experiences. On June 25, 1984, I wrote a letter to the editor of another journal in response to an interesting article that appeared in that journal one month earlier. In October 1984, I wrote a second letter to that editor inquiring about the fate of my previous letter.