Salami Slicing in journal publication: ethical or unethical?

 

Salami slicing, in the context of academic integrity, refers to the practice of dividing a single research study into multiple smaller publications. This is typically done to increase the number of publications and citations, which can boost a researcher's profile. However, it can mislead the academic community by presenting fragmented results, complicating the understanding of the research as a whole. When findings that belong to a single study are split across several papers, it risks distorting the scientific literature and creates challenges for reproducibility.

This practice is largely considered unethical because it prioritizes quantity over quality. By focusing on boosting publication numbers, salami slicing can degrade the overall integrity of research and reduce the impact of each individual paper. It can lead to lower-quality publications, often in less reputable journals, which diminishes the researcher’s credibility and hampers the contribution to their field. Although certain situations might justify publishing distinct aspects of a broad study separately, it is essential that each publication addresses a unique hypothesis or methodology to maintain academic rigor.

In some cases, salami slicing is permissible if the segments of the research have substantial individual contributions to different aspects of knowledge. For example, publishing the same patient data from varying disciplinary perspectives or translating professional guidelines for different readerships can be justified. However, authors must be transparent about the overlap and ensure that editors are fully informed. The key distinction is whether the divided research adds distinct value to the literature, with clarity and transparency maintained throughout the publication process.