the pitfalls of “salami slicing” focus on quality and not quantity of publications

The pitfalls of “salami slicing”:

Focus on quality and not quantity of publications

Helping you get published

Focus on quality and not quantity of publications

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 pitfalls of “salami slicing”

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.

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


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


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 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


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 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.


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.


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 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.


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 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.


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 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.


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, fill the medical literature with inconsequential material,

and distort the academic reward system.6

- Editorial, New England Journal of Medicine


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 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


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 accompanying cover letter.9 In addition, refer to all related

studies within the manuscript.


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


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.

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


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.

Connect with us on:

http://www.facebook.com/Editage

http://www.twitter.com/Editage

Connect

http://www.twitter.com/Editage

http://www.linkedin.com/company/cactus-communications

the pitfalls of “salami slicing” focus on quality and not quantity of publications

Education

salami slicing

control data

language pathology

american journal

england journal

comparing

control group

salami publication