A poll for psychologists (and be honest): Have you "salami-sliced" a paper with the primary goal of increasing your number of publications? That is, you had some set of studies that would make a good and coherent paper but instead published them separately to increase pub count.
-
-
I have as well, but I'm still unclear about how common it is. (And I'm guessing the forward-thinking psych Twitter peeps will underestimate the prevalence, but still interesting to see what people say)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It seems they do it not because of a general pressure on salami slicing per se, but (I feel bad for saying this) because they don't know better.
-
TBH, if there wasn't any correlation of this with career development, I don't think it necessarily matters (or only matters at the extremes). The data are the same, and the conclusions from a series of papers, or one big paper, should be the same.
-
It's the packaging (i.e., how it is sold) that might lead to problems, more than the splitting of the data per se.
-
I am planning to salami my study but basically it’s 3 different experiments that target different cognitive processes, some imaging and sleep recordings are only relevant to some. I don’t see a problem. But then equally one of my (expected) null findings will only make it to
-
the supplementary materials of on one paper. From that study another task/experiment was taken to “complement” and publish together with same task from a different study. I think it’s only sensible to publish what works together together.
-
And separate what doesn’t.
-
Not sure this is salami slicing.
-
IMHO salami slicing, like a crime, has to have a mens rea. So organising experiments into papers is not sufficient to determine if salami slicing has been done.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.