{"id":2005,"date":"2013-11-04T06:55:20","date_gmt":"2013-11-04T06:55:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-pitfalls-of-salami-slicing-focus-on-quality-and-not-quantity-of-publications\/"},"modified":"2025-01-15T06:45:32","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T06:45:32","slug":"the-pitfalls-of-salami-slicing-focus-on-quality-and-not-quantity-of-publications","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-pitfalls-of-salami-slicing-focus-on-quality-and-not-quantity-of-publications","title":{"rendered":"The pitfalls of “salami slicing”: Focus on quality and not quantity of publications"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n

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\u2014each reporting a different set of results\u2014and send these papers to two different journals? Or consider a case where you are studying several closely related compounds.1<\/sup> Should you write a separate paper for each compound?<\/p>\n

The answer to both questions is no. Editors consider these as cases of \u201csalami slicing\u201d\u2014unethically fragmenting the results of a single study and reporting them in multiple papers.<\/p>\n

What is salami slicing?<\/font><\/p>\n

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<\/sup> In other words, it means breaking up a single research paper into their \u201cleast publishable units,\u201d 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<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Salami
\nA journal editor gave the following examples to illustrate a case of salami slicing.4<\/sup> Can you determine which is the case of salami slicing?<\/p>\n

Scenario 1 : <\/font>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.<\/p>\n

Scenario 2 : <\/font>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.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
Answer<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

Scenario 1<\/font> 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 <\/font>is likely to be considered a salami publication. All of the data should be published in a single manuscript.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
What\u2019s wrong with doing this?<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n