The document discusses the practice of "salami slicing" in academic publishing, which is the unethical fragmentation of a single study into multiple smaller papers to increase publication quantity. It provides examples of acceptable and unacceptable cases and explains the pitfalls, which include distorting the value of research, increasing non-essential literature, and misrepresenting the importance of findings. Researchers are advised to focus on quality over quantity and ensure full, cohesive reporting of results from a single study in as few papers as possible.

1. The pitfalls of
“salami slicing”: Focus
on quality and not
quantity of publications

2. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
Imagine you have just completed a controlled
study about a new intervention in a birthing
center. You have two sets of results: one set
on mothers and one on infants. Should you
write two papers—each reporting a different
set of results—and send these papers to two
different journals? Or consider a case where
you are studying several closely related
compounds.1 Should you write a separate
paper for each compound?
The answer to both questions is no. Editors
consider these as cases of “salami slicing”—
unethically fragmenting the results of a single
study and reporting them in multiple papers.
Study about a new intervention in
a birthing centre
Mothers
Infants
Journal 1
Journal 2

3. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
What is salami slicing?
It refers to the practice of partitioning a large
study that could have been reported in a single
research article into smaller published articles.2
In other words, it means breaking up a single
research paper into their “least publishable
units,” with each paper reporting different
findings from the same study.
A set of papers are referred to as salami
publications when more than one paper
covers the same population, methods,
and research question.3
Study about a new intervention in
a birthing centre
Mothers
Infants
Journal 1
Journal 2

4. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
Journal Speak
When a manuscript is submitted to the American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, one of the many decisions that must
be made is whether it meets or exceeds a ‘least publishable unit’
criterion. To make this decision, I ask myself the following question:
“Does this manuscript contain enough new data, knowledge, or
insight to warrant publication?”4
- Editor, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

5. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
A journal editor gave the following examples
to illustrate a case of salami slicing.4
Scenario 1: A scientist begins a new line of
research. The scientist has developed a new
instrument for collecting data, one that is
more precise than the current instruments.
The main study may take a year or over to
complete. The scientist submits a
manuscript for publication describing the
new instrument before completing the main
study.
PUBLICATION
Description of
new instrument
Can you determine which is the case of
salami slicing?
INSTRUMENT
FOR DATA
COLLECTION

6. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
APHASIA GROUPS
B
Control group
Control
group
Manuscript 2
B
Manuscript 1
Control group
A
A
Scenario 2: After determining
the research question and
setting the study design, a
scientist collects data on three
groups of participants. Two of
the groups have different types
of aphasia (Groups A and B),
and one group is a control
group. The scientist submits
two manuscripts for
publication: one comparing
Group A with the control
group, and the other
comparing Group B with the
control group.
PUBLICATIO
N

7. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
Answer:
Scenario 1 is not likely to be considered as a
salami publication. The new instrument was not a
part of the research question, but rather was
NOT A SALAMI PUBLICATION
developed to answer the research question.
When publishing the main study, the scientist
need not describe the instrument in detail in the
Methods section, but rather should refer to the
previous publication.
Scenario 2 is likely to be considered a salami
publication. All of the data should be published
in a single manuscript.
SALAMI PUBLICATION

8. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
What’s wrong with doing this?
Career distortions: Researchers practise salami slicing to
increase their volume of publications, born of the
“publish and perish” culture.5 In the short term, salami
science may allow researchers to progress faster in their
careers or receive more funding than they actually merit,
owing to the greater number of publications in their
resume.6,7 However, this can be harmful in the long term,
since it diminishes the value of each publication. You
may have managed to add a long list of publications to
your name through salami publications, but if a
committee were to review the body of work, they
might conclude that the studies themselves are not
substantial enough.

9. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
What’s wrong with doing this?
Harm to science. Publishing unnecessary and repetitive
information increases the amount of literature, but not
the amount of knowledge. If closely related data from a
single group is divided across several papers, readers
who access only one of the papers may misinterpret the
findings. Further, multiple reports may cause a set of
findings to be given more importance that it deserves.
For instance, in the example mentioned in the beginning,
another researcher conducting a meta-analysis on the
new intervention for birthing centers might erroneously
assume that this intervention has been studied twice,
rather than once.

10. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
Journal Speak
As earlier editorials have pointed out, multiple reports of the
same observations can overemphasize the importance of the
findings, overburden busy reviewers, fill the medical literature
with inconsequential material, and distort the academic
reward system.6
- Editorial, New England Journal of Medicine

11. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
Is it always wrong to report a single study
through multiple papers?
If the original dataset is extremely large (e.g., a
population-based study) or when the dataset takes
years to collect and analyze, the authors have
justifiable and legitimate grounds to report the
research in more than one paper.6,8 However, each
paper should address distinct and important
questions.8 If the study is motivated and designed
around a single hypothesis, its results should be
presented to the readers as a single package,
regardless of the size of the dataset.4

12. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
If you do have legitimate grounds to submit
multiple publications based on the same
study, ensure that you inform the editorial
office about any possibly overlapping
information (including whether any of the
control data in a manuscript are also included
among the control data in another manuscript
or whether you have previously published
articles on the same or a closely related topic)
either before submitting a paper or in the
accompanying cover letter.9 In addition, refer
to all related studies within the manuscript.

13. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
Journal Speak
When authors fail to disclose all relevant work, they deny referees and
editors the opportunity of assessing the true extent of its contribution to
the broader body of research.10
-Editorial, Nature Materials
A reasonable yardstick by which to judge redundancy is to ask whether a
single paper would be more cohesive and informative than two, without
being excessively long.7
- Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

14. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
Conclusion
A paper will have a greater chance of
publication as a full-scale study, rather than a
fragment of a larger study. Focus on the
quality of your publications, not quantity.
Salami slicing to increase the number of
publications on your resume might only end
up sabotaging your research career at a later
stage.

15. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
REFERENCES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
McCann G (n.d.). Common Reasons for Rejection. Journal of Materials Chemistry, Author Guidelines.
Cicutto L (2008). Plagiarism: Avoiding the peril in scientific writing. Chest. 133(2): 579-81. doi:
10.1378/chest.07-2326
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2005). Cases: Salami publication. Accessed on July 7, 2011.
Available at http://www.publicationethics.org/case/salami-publication.
Hoit J (2007). Salami science. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16: 94. doi:
10.1044/1058-0360(2007/013).
Abraham P (2000). Duplicate and salami publications. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 46: 67
Kassirer J & Angell M (1995). Redundant publication: A reminder (Editorial). The New England Journal
of Medicine, 333: 449-50.
Doherty M (1996). The misconduct of redundant publication. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases,
55(11): 783-85.
Tobin M (2002). AJRCCM’s policy on duplicate publication: Infrequently asked questions. American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166: 433-34.
Bankier A, Levine D, Sheiman R, Lev M, Kressel H (2008). Redundant publications in radiology: Shades
of gray in a seemingly black-and-white issue. Radiology, 247: 605-7. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2473080298.
Editorial (2005). The cost of salami slicing. Nature Materials 4(1). doi: 10.1038/nmat1305.

16. Connect with us on:
http://www.facebook.com/Editage
http://www.twitter.com/Editage
http://www.linkedin.com/company/cactus-communications