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.
Ethical research and publication practices are essential for honest scholarly and scientific research. Most journals today are keenly aware of this: they publish policies on these issues and expect authors to “be aware of, and comply with, best practice in publication ethics”.This article discusses two widespread and related publishing practices that are considered unethical—duplicate publication and simultaneous submission. It draws on definitive international publication ethics guidelines.
In academia, the pressure to publish is high and the competition intense. This can lead authors to follow unethical publication practices, such as salami slicing, duplicate publication, and simultaneous submission. This slide deck explains these malpractices and shares tips on how authors can avoid them.
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.
Ethical research and publication practices are essential for honest scholarly and scientific research. Most journals today are keenly aware of this: they publish policies on these issues and expect authors to “be aware of, and comply with, best practice in publication ethics”.This article discusses two widespread and related publishing practices that are considered unethical—duplicate publication and simultaneous submission. It draws on definitive international publication ethics guidelines.
In academia, the pressure to publish is high and the competition intense. This can lead authors to follow unethical publication practices, such as salami slicing, duplicate publication, and simultaneous submission. This slide deck explains these malpractices and shares tips on how authors can avoid them.
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.
The essential mission of SRGE toward the research and education in Egypt is to foster learning and promoting research integrity in the current and next generation of researchers in Egypt. SRGE is rededicating itself to this fundamental purpose.
I explain plainly what is salami silcing, a practice of fragmenting single research into as many publications as possible. Salami publishing and hazards
When publishing research, one needs to be aware of all such actions that are unethical and hence, must be avoided. This presentation gives an overview of the topic.
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
Going for Gold and Greener Pastures: Open Access Explained
Presentation by Lisa Kruesi, Helen Morgan and Andrew Heath from The University of Queensland Scholarly Publishing and Digititisation Service for Open Access Week, October 2012.
Through the course of your research, right until you get your your paper published, there will be several individuals who have contributed to your research project in different ways. However, not all of these individuals can be considered as authors of your paper. So who qualifies as an author on your manuscript?
This slide deck will clarify who is an author, who does not qualify as an author of your paper and also three unethical authorship-related practices that you must avoid.
The essential mission of SRGE toward the research and education in Egypt is to foster learning and promoting research integrity in the current and next generation of researchers in Egypt. SRGE is rededicating itself to this fundamental purpose.
I explain plainly what is salami silcing, a practice of fragmenting single research into as many publications as possible. Salami publishing and hazards
When publishing research, one needs to be aware of all such actions that are unethical and hence, must be avoided. This presentation gives an overview of the topic.
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
Going for Gold and Greener Pastures: Open Access Explained
Presentation by Lisa Kruesi, Helen Morgan and Andrew Heath from The University of Queensland Scholarly Publishing and Digititisation Service for Open Access Week, October 2012.
Through the course of your research, right until you get your your paper published, there will be several individuals who have contributed to your research project in different ways. However, not all of these individuals can be considered as authors of your paper. So who qualifies as an author on your manuscript?
This slide deck will clarify who is an author, who does not qualify as an author of your paper and also three unethical authorship-related practices that you must avoid.
Publication bias refers to a phenomenon in scientific reporting whereby authors are more likely to submit and journal editors are more likely to publish studies with “positive” results (i.e. results showing a significant finding) than studies with “negative” (i.e. supporting the null hypothesis) or unsupportive results.
Due to such a bias, important—albeit negative—results (e.g., a study showing that a new treatment is ineffective) may never reach the larger scientific community.
Science is ever evolving, and replication studies and negative findings play a major role in helping science grow. But journals are not always open to publishing these. What role do replication studies play in scientific discovery? And how does publishing negative results help further the cause of science? View this presentation to learn more.
How to Read a Research Article? By Dr. Nizar Saleh Abdelfattah, 2017Kareem Alnakeeb
This presentation is created by Dr. Nizar Saleh Abdelfattah in 2017. He used it in his episodes of "Research Fundamentals For Dummies" on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuDFktFSWZ_XVufo7h9bDIerKoo7s3ouA
* The original presentation on Mediafire:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/mu5dml695g5r8qf/How-to-Research-by-Nizar-Abdelfattah.pptx/file
HEALTHCARE RESEARCH METHODS: More on reviewing the literatureDr. Khaled OUANES
Once you have a good idea about the existing literature in general (Gather as many articles, reports and books as possible), You can start digging into individual articles.
Open Research Practices in the Age of a Papermill PandemicDorothy Bishop
Talk given to Open Research Group, Maynooth University, October 2022.
Describes the phenomenon of large-scale fraudulent science publishing (papermills), and discusses how open science practices can help tackle this.
American Journal Experts presents "Five Myths About Open Access Publishing" to help address some of the misconceptions about this movement in international scholarly publishing. AJE supports open access as part of its mission of accelerating the process of global discovery.
The preparation of case reports, using existing recommendations and a random sample of recent case reports, researchers developed a fill-in-the-blanks worksheet for doctors to record specific scientific findings.
Continue Reading: https://bit.ly/36Rh1W6
For our services: https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/case-report-writing/
Why Pubrica:
When you order our services, We promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Biostatistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts.
Contact us:
Web: https://pubrica.com/
Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/
Email: sales@pubrica.com
WhatsApp : +91 9884350006
United Kingdom: +44-1618186353
Responding to peer reviewer comments can be a daunting task for most researchers. After spending months on your research project and preparing your manuscript, it is only natural that you will want to avoid making further changes to your paper. However, comments by peer reviewers and are meant to help you improve the qaulity of your manuscript. And the journal will only accept your paper for publication after you have addressed all of the reviewer comments.
This slide deck has 14 tips that will help you confidently and thoroughly address peer reviewers comments.
While writing your research paper, you might often refer to existing work published by other researchers in your field. However, it is extremely important to acknowledge all such sources clearly and completely. Attempting to use the ideas, words, or work of another person, without giving them due credit, is considered extremely unethical and is termed plagiarism.
This slide deck briefly explains 4 common types of plagiarism in academic publishing, how journals detect plagiarism in research papers, and the consequences of plagiarism.
In order for your manuscript to stand out from the other submissions you need to make sure you have everything right. Make sure the IMRaD structure as well as the submission requirements are fulfilled. Follow this checklist to make sure you have everything in place before you submit your paper.
In Part 1 of the Authorship series, we discussed criteria that will help you determine whether a particular contributor qualifies to be an author of your research paper. If you are submitting a multi-author paper, once you have ascertained the authors of your paper, how should you decide on the order in which these author names should be included? In this slide deck, we will discuss the basis on which you should list authors on your paper, who qualifies to be the first author, and how the remaining authors of your paper should be listed.
Clinical trials constitute a critical stage of clinical research and it is important to understand what clinical trials are and what forms they take. In this slide deck, we will tell you more about the types and phases of clinical trials.
2017 was a very eventful year for everyone in the academic publishing industry. The year witnessed many significant trend-setting changes and new practices, keeping many of us on our toes.
we interviewed many thought leaders in the scholarly industry to get a sense of their views on these trends and changes. In this SlideShare presentation, we bring you extracts from their interviews and advice that they shared to help you.
Many researchers hesitate to publish open access (OA) for a variety of reasons. This reluctance to submit to OA journals and make research freely accessible could be triggered by several existing misconceptions about OA. In order to choose a legitimate OA journal, authors must be able to differentiate between reliable OA journals and the predatory ones.
This presentation will list a set of questions that authors can ask themselves before choosing an OA journal to submit their papers. These questions will indicate the authenticity of the concerned journal.
A cover letter is the first point of contact between you and the target journal's editors. As such, your cover letter functions as a sales pitch to the journal editors. In other words, you cover letter needs to sell the notion of why your manuscript deserves to be published in and how it matches the scope of the target journal.
This presentation will tell you everything you need to know to write a great cover letter for your submission. This includes:
1. What is a cover letter?
2. Differences between a cover letter and a title page
3. Why are cover letters important?
4. Basic information a cover letter should contain
5. Additional details you could include
6. References for further reading
Presenting at an academic conference is an essential and inevitable part of a researcher's life. In order to make a successful and effective conference presentation, knowing your research paper in its entirety is not enough. You must also be well-prepared in terms of of public speaking factors such as observing time limits, making eye contact, engaging the audience, etc. This Slideshare will equip you with 9 tips to help you effectively communicate your research at your next academic conference.
Traditional Medicine (TM) has been subject to substantial debate with regard to the ethics governing research in this area. The controversies have generally revolved around the unreasonable harvesting of medicinal plants, ethical accountability of researchers towards local knowledge holders and the credibility of TM as a complementary and alternative mode of treatment.
This presentation stresses the importance of understanding the 6 ethical principles governing publication in TM journals:-
1. Sustenance
2. Scientific validation
3. Informed consent
4. Reporting standards
5. Proprietary issues
6. Ethical policies and declarations
The theme of Peer Review Week 2016 was Recognize Review, and the global scholarly publishing community got together to talk about recognizing or incentivizing peer reviewers. Celebrating the theme, we asked our authors to share small notes of appreciation for reviewers. This flip book compiles some of the responses we received, which show the important role peer review and reviewers play in the academic publishing system.
What do you need to know before and while working on a clinical trial? This slide deck tells you more about the things you need to remember when preparing to publish your clinical trial, from developing a research protocol and getting informed consent from study participants to registering your trial and preparing a clinical trial manuscript.
Clinical trials constitute a critical stage of clinical research and it is important for you to understand what clinical trials are and what forms they take. In this slide deck, we will tell you more about the types and phases of clinical trials. The idea is to help you form a basic understanding of clinical trials. This is a two-part series and the next segment will focus on the things you must remember when preparing to publish a clinical trial manuscript.
Coming soon - Part 2: Things to remember when preparing a clinical trial manuscript
As an author, it is quite difficult to write concisely. After all, you have so much to say! But when submitting your manuscript to a journal, you must ensure that you meet the required word count. Let us look at some areas you can focus on to keep your manuscript concise.
A literature review is a critical summary of all the published works on a particular topic. Most research papers include a section on literature review as part of the introduction. However, a literature review can also be published as a standalone article. These slides will help you grasp the basics of writing a literature review.
2015 was a busy year for the academic publishing world, with many trend-setting practices, significant discoveries, and innovations. Editage Insights spoke to several experts from the publishing industry to know their thoughts about these trends. Here, we bring you extracts of the knowledge they shared to help you get first-hand advice on academic publication.
Original research articles constitute a major portion of academic journal publishing. These slides will help you with four important steps to of writing an original research article: choosing a research question, doing a literature search, structuring a manuscript, and formatting a research paper.
As a researcher, you are expected to start publishing early in your career. But original research could take years to complete! This does not mean you that you cannot publish a paper until you complete your research. You can disseminate your research in many other ways. These slides will help you learn more about the different types of scholarly literature so that you are able to choose the most suitable format for publishing your study.
How much do you know about the basic terminology of intellectual property applicable to scholarly publishing? This presentation touches upon the types of intellectual property and explains the kinds of licenses that are currently being used by authors and publishers across the globe.
You have to take care of many things while submitting a manuscript to a journal - from checking the IMRaD structure to following all the submission requirements. To ensure that your manuscript stands out from among all other submissions, you must get everything right. Follow this manuscript submission checklist to ensure that you've got everything you need.
More from Editage Insights (Resources for authors and journals) (20)
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
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