The studies by Cook et al1 and Braga-Baiak et al2 share similar methodologies and participants, involve the same authors, and have similar analyses and results. As such, these similarities deserve further explanation as how the manuscripts resulting from these works do not qualify as repetitive, duplicate, or redundant publications.3 The purpose of both studies was to identify intrarater and interrater agreement among radiologists for a battery of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) metrics, before and after implementation of operational guidelines. There were 12 unique MRI metrics related to spinal stenosis from the publication of Cook et al1 and 34 unique MRI metrics related to disc herniation in the article of Braga-Baiak et al.2 We emphasize that each metric was scored, calculated, and reported in only one publication. The decision to divide the study into two publications was made partially based on topic focus (specific metrics of herniation vs general measures of stenosis), the quantity of the metrics (46), and that each metric involved 4 unique and detailed analyses. The authorship teams felt that each topic and hypothesis were unique and thus justified a separate publication. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that during the submission process, we inadvertently did not notify the editors of either journal that a related manuscript was under review. Specifically, as the submission timelines were similar, we unintentionally omitted references of one article to the other. It is thus our hope that this letter clarifies the differences between the 2 studies and also serves to outline the importance of full disclosure during the pursuance of publication of related material.