Abstract
Fragmented or multiple publishing is generally considered negative, as authors may inflate their number of articles through duplicate publications and salami publications. However, there are valid and defensible arguments for a single research study generating multiple publications. The existing literature confirm the existence of fragmented publishing; however, the extent of the phenomenon is questioned. The present study is a large-scale analysis within the health sciences of more than 50,000 studies and the resulting publications. The data allows us to analyze differences across subdisciplines as well as over time. The results show that the majority of the fragmented publications are journal articles. This study also shows that the extent of fragmented publishing is tied to subdisciplines. Increased as well as decreased fragmented publishing are found when we compare across the subdisciplines as the development is tied to subdisciplines. The implications are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The groups are available in Table 2. At the time, this was available at http://www.cochranelibrary.com/home/topic-and-review-group-list.html?page=editorial-group.
References
Adibi, P., Kianpour, M., & Shirani, S. (2010). Fundamental analysis of duplicate publication of research papers. Journal of Isfahan Medical School, 27(103), 874–881.
Andreescu, L. (2013). Self-plagiarism in academic publishing: The anatomy of a misnomer. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 775–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9416-1.
Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2018). Temporal characteristics of retracted articles. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1771–1783.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). Multiple publication on a single research study: Does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1100–1107.
Budd, J. M., & Stewart, K. N. (2015). Is there such a thing as “Least Publishable Unit”? An empirical investigation. Libres, 25(2), 78–85.
Cheung, V. W. F., Lam, G. O. A., Wang, Y. F., & Chadha, N. K. (2014). Current incidence of duplicate publication in otolaryngology. Laryngoscope, 124(3), 655–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24294.
COPE Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019a). http://publicationethics.org/. Accessed 5 Apr 2019.
COPE Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019b). Salami publication. https://publicationethics.org/case/salami-publication. Accessed 5 Apr 2019.
Dupps, W. J., & Randleman, J. B. (2012). The perils of the least publishable unit. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 38(9), 1517–1518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.07.020.
Durani, P. (2006). Duplicate publications: Redundancy in plastic surgery literature. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 59(9), 975–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2005.11.039.
Ebrahim, S., Montoya, L., Kamal el Din, M., Sohani, Z. N., Agarwal, A., Bance, S., et al. (2016). Randomized trials are frequently fragmented in multiple secondary publications. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 79, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.05.016.
Fanelli, D., & Larivière, V. (2016). Researchers’ individual publication rate has not increased in a century. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0149504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149504.
García-Romero, A., & Estrada-Lorenzo, J. M. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of plagiarism and self-plagiarism through Déjà vu. Scientometrics, 101(1), 381–396.
Happell, B. (2016). Salami: By the slice or swallowed whole? Applied Nursing Research, 30, 29–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2015.08.011.
Hennessey, K. K., Williams, A. R., Afshar, K., & MacNeily, A. E. (2012). Duplicate publications: A sample of redundancy in the Journal of Urology. Journal of the Canadian Urological Association, 6(3), 177–180. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.11265.
Hicks, R., & Berg, J. A. (2014). Multiple publications from a single study: Ethical dilemmas. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 26(5), 233–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12125.
Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5). New Yook: Wiley Online Library.
Jefferson, T. (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(2), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-998-0043-9.
Kim, S. Y., Bae, C. W., Hahm, C. K., & Cho, H. M. (2014). Duplicate publication rate decline in korean medical journals. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 29(2), 172–175. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.2.172.
Kolesnikov, S., Fukumoto, E., & Bozeman, B. (2018). Researchers’ risk-smoothing publication strategies: Is productivity the enemy of impact? Scientometrics, 116(3), 1995–2017.
Lariviere, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980–2007). Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 179–190.
Le, A., Moran, C. M. P., Bezuhly, M., & Hong, P. (2015). Duplicate publications and related problems in published papers on oral and maxillofacial surgery. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 53(6), 546–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.03.008.
Norman, G. (2014). Data dredging, salami-slicing, and other successful strategies to ensure rejection: Twelve tips on how to not get your paper published. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 19(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9494-8.
Norman, I., & Griffiths, P. (2008). Duplicate publication and ‘salami slicing’: Ethical issues and practical solutions. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(9), 1257–1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.07.003.
Refinetti, R. (1990). In defense of the least publishable unit. The FASEB Journal, 4(1), 128–129.
Rohrich, R. J., & Sullivan, D. (2009). Plagiarism and dual publication: Review of the issues and policy statement. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 124(4), 1333–1339. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b59d42.
Schein, M., & Paladugu, R. (2001). Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg? Surgery, 129(6), 655–661. https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2001.114549.
Smart, P. (2017). Redundant publication and salami slicing: The significance of splitting data. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 59(8), 775. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13485.
Spielmans, G. I., Biehn, T. L., & Sawrey, D. L. (2010). A case study of salami slicing: Pooled analyses of duloxetine for depression. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 79(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1159/000270917.
Spielmans, G. I., Olson, S., & Keicher, R. M. (2017). “Salami slicing” in pooled analyses of second-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of depression. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 86(3), 171–172. https://doi.org/10.1159/000464251.
Statzner, B., & Resh, V. H. (2010). Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: Potential causes and consequences. Freshwater Biology, 55(12), 2639–2653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02484.x.
Suárez, A. L., Bernhard, J. D., & Dellavalle, R. P. (2012). Telling the same tale twice: Déjà vu and the shades of grey in self-plagiarism. In L. Bercovitch & C. Perlis (Eds.), Dermatoethics: Contemporary ethics and professionalism in dermatology (pp. 233–236). London: Springer.
Trujillo, M. E., & Oren, A. (2018). Avoiding ‘salami slicing’ in publications describing new prokaryotic taxa. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 68(4), 977–978. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.002634.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 3.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Frandsen, T.F., Eriksen, M.B., Hammer, D.M.G. et al. Fragmented publishing: a large-scale study of health science. Scientometrics 119, 1729–1743 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03109-9
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03109-9