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

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.