Recent encounters with atom-thin salami slicing

The article discusses the unethical practice of "salami slicing" in scientific publishing, where researchers split their findings into multiple papers to inflate their publication count. This practice, which dates back to the early 1980s, is criticized for its lack of originality and potential to mislead the scientific community. The author presents several case studies illustrating this issue across various fields. For instance, six articles from Saveetha Dental College in India were published within four months, all using the same ethics approval number and similar methodologies, raising concerns about redundancy and ethical standards. Another example involves the Good Research Project, which produced numerous articles analyzing gender trends in authorship using minimal data points, often leading to meaningless conclusions. Additionally, the article highlights cases of reusing the same histological images across multiple studies and the repetition of X-ray diffraction patterns in different publications. The author emphasizes that such practices undermine scientific integrity and contribute to a growing problem of data misuse in research.

- Salami slicing inflates publication counts by splitting research findings into multiple papers.

- Numerous case studies illustrate the prevalence of redundant publications and ethical violations.

- Institutions like Saveetha Dental College and the Good Research Project exemplify problematic publishing practices.

- Reusing images and data across multiple articles raises serious concerns about research integrity.

- The article calls for greater scrutiny and ethical standards in scientific publishing to combat these issues.