How have editors on the WAME list disciplined salami publication offenders (meaning a paper that has overlapping data with another paper by the same authors, but not enough overlap to be considered duplicate publication)? 

Did you warn them or give them a slap on the wrist? Did you ban them? 

Did you publish a statement describing the offense and even the punishment you meted out? 

Any info would be helpful.

Thank you.

Stephen Welch
Executive Editor, CHEST
_______________________________
We published an article on this. 

Rivara FP, Christakis DA, Cummings P. Duplicate publication. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(9):926.

Fred Rivara
Editor, Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
_______________________________
If I heard a definition of salami publication that was specific, verifiable, and would result in high inter-observer agreement among editors or reviewers, I would be comfortable considering sanctions, etc. But I have not yet heard such a definition and am willing to wager I'm not going to hear one soon. 

Failing that, salami is in the eye of the beholder (the editor). I can reject the paper, express my view that it is salami, and tell them we don't want that stuff (just as we don't want unoriginal research). I would not go any further. As we all know, that does not mean that the editor in the next shop down the road won't happily publish it. Some disciplines are built very solidly on a foundation of salami.

Michael Callaham
_______________________________
As Editor, I experienced two occasions, this year, when an author submitted such manuscripts. In the first occasion, the author actually submitted the same manuscript, which was published 6 months earlier. I had a lot of trouble explaining to him that is not acceptable. However, he insisted that the 2 papers were different. I had to send the second paper to the same reviewers of the previous paper. This solved the problem. In the second instance, an author submitted a manuscript in which some of data had already been published by the same group in the same journal. I submitted it to reviewers of his previous paper. I am yet to get their response. 

All in all, this is happening and will continue to happen. It is important that, if possible, editors read all the manuscripts submitted to get acquainted with the content to avoid the above scenario.

Leonard Mboera
Editor, Tanzania Health Research Bulletin
_______________________________
I think this is a complicated issue where we, as editors, are sending mixed messages. I would also like to distinguish duplicate publications from 'salami' publications. 

My research involves very large, complex longitudinal studies with multiple measures designed to test multiple related hypotheses. Often these data take 3-5 years to collect and will result in many legitimate, non-overlapping publications—that's why they were funded.

As an author, I used to send out and publish quite long manuscripts that might be 45-50 pages long and involved a tightly connected series of inter-related questions. I stopped doing this for two reasons. First, there are now very tight requirements in the journals I publish in for 30-page manuscripts, including cover page, abstract, references, figures, and tables. Given that several pages are always references, several more tables, and 2 for cover page and abstract, that isn't a lot of text. So my papers are necessarily more 'salami-like' than they were before.  Second, reviewers don't like long, complex papers. They are more confusing and take a lot of effort to connect all the pieces. I have had short, complete, and well developed papers involving just ONE idea have much better chances of acceptance without going through 4 rounds of review. So, as an author, I have been trained now to publish my work in less complex and shorter units.

As an editor, however, I get lots of manuscripts that are too short. There isn't enough 'finding' in them to make a full publication. Sometimes I recommend that they resubmit as a short report. Sometimes they are too light for even that. If I feel that about a manuscript, I reject it without external review. If I can be trained to write shorter papers, I expect other motivated authors can be trained to write longer ones. 

I would also note that at least one journal in my field has tried to address the issue of complex, longitudinal studies by encouraging publication of very long manuscripts when warranted and short reports in other cases. The editor's argument is that when you're reporting on a complex issue and have longitudinal data or data across multiple generations you need space to explain what you've done. In the short term, each paper is longer. In the long term, however, combining what would otherwise be several related manuscripts into one consolidates the literature review and methods sections and takes fewer total manuscript pages. It also can make the research arc much more accessible to readers.

Nancy Darling