Salami Slicing: clarifying common misconceptions for social science early-career researchers

Abstract

Abstract The term Salami Slicing is used often within academia to refer to the needless separation of a single research study, attached dataset, and argument that should form a single publication, into two or several separate publications for submission in different journals. While the term is used with frequency, there exist few explicit guidelines that concretely explain firstly: what tangibly constitutes the unethical and damaging practice of Salami Slicing, and secondly: instances relating to social science research where multiple publications from a single body of data are not only acceptable, but necessary for furthering scholarly thought and developing important cross-disciplinary perspectives. These cases actively exist outside of and resist the Salami Slicing label. This paper represents a discussion of the above points from my perspective as a social science early career researcher (ECR) in the hope of clarifying the key misconceptions and ambiguities surrounding this common yet often elusive term. By doing this, I hope to minimise anxiety and panic for fellow ECRs, and help them avoid needlessly withdrawing carefully developed and time-intensive publications that could actively benefit and grow different disciplinary social science perspectives.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.