In the race to publish more papers, some researchers indulge in unethical practices, one of which is salami slicing. Salami slicing means fragmenting one study and publishing it in multiple papers. This practice is considered improper and can affect your career, besides being damaging to science. This SlideShare explains in detail what salami slicing is and why it is considered unethical. It also includes opinions of journal editors on the issue.

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

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 the author 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.

3. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
What is salami slicing?
Salami slicing 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

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
Can you determine which is the case of salami slicing?
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.

6. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
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.

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 developed to answer the research question.
Further, other scientists benefit from the publication because
they can also use the new data collection method. 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.

8. The pitfalls of “salami slicing”
What’s wrong with doing this?
Career distortions. Salami slicing is widely regarded as a practice
that researchers employ to increase their volume of
publications, borne of the “publish and perish” culture.5 In the
short term, salami science may allow scientists and researchers
to progress faster in their careers or receive more funding than
they actually merit, owing to the greater number of publications
they can list on their resume.6,7However, salami slicing 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?
In some cases where the original dataset is extremely large (e.g.,
a population-based study) and 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. McCann G (n.d.). Common Reasons for Rejection. Journal of Materials Chemistry, Author Guidelines.
2. Cicutto L (2008). Plagiarism: Avoiding the peril in scientific writing. Chest. 133(2): 579-81. doi:
10.1378/chest.07-2326
3. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2005). Cases: Salami publication. Accessed on July 7, 2011.
Available at http://www.publicationethics.org/case/salami-publication.
4. Hoit J (2007). Salami science. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16: 94. doi:
10.1044/1058-0360(2007/013).
5. Abraham P (2000). Duplicate and salami publications. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 46: 67
6. Kassirer J & Angell M (1995). Redundant publication: A reminder (Editorial). The New England Journal
of Medicine, 333: 449-50.
7. Doherty M (1996). The misconduct of redundant publication. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases,
55(11): 783-85.
8. Tobin M (2002). AJRCCM’s policy on duplicate publication: Infrequently asked questions. American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166: 433-34.
9. 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.
10. Editorial (2005). The cost of salami slicing. Nature Materials 4(1). doi: 10.1038/nmat1305.

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