Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Publication Ethics›Duplicate Publication and Salami Slicing
Process / pipelinepublication-misconduct

Duplicate Publication and Salami Slicing

Duplicate Publication and Salami Slicing in Academic Research · Also known as: Redundant Publication, Overlapping Publication, Fragmented Research

Duplicate publication occurs when the same research data are published more than once without acknowledgment or justification, presenting the same or substantially similar results as previously published work. Salami slicing is the related practice of dividing the results of a single study into the smallest possible publishable units and submitting them as separate papers to multiply publication counts. Both practices artificially inflate research output, mislead readers, and violate ethical standards upheld by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and research integrity organizations worldwide.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Duplicate Publication and Salami Slicing
Article Retraction Proce…COPE Guidelines for Publ…ICMJE Authorship CriteriaPlagiarism in Academic R…

When to use it

Apply these concepts when planning a multi-paper research program, especially in cohort studies or longitudinal projects where temptation to slice exists. Use them when submitting a manuscript to evaluate whether results overlap with prior publications. Apply when reviewing literature to identify potential duplicate data. Use as a guideline when designing secondary analyses on published datasets—ensure the new research question and outcomes are sufficiently different.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Clear definitions provided by COPE and research integrity bodies prevent unintentional misconduct.
  • Standards promote efficiency of the peer review system and protect the integrity of the research record.
  • Explicit disclosure requirements (e.g., stating prior publications) allow editors and readers to judge novelty fairly.
  • Enforcement through retraction and investigation discourages future misconduct.
Limitations
  • Grey area between legitimate secondary analyses and salami slicing—judgment required.
  • Large cohort studies or longitudinal projects may naturally produce multiple papers with overlapping samples; justifying novelty can be challenging.
  • Detection is difficult if data are published in different languages or in low-visibility journals.
  • Minor variations in inclusion criteria or outcome measures may hide substantial overlap.

Frequently asked

Is it duplicate publication if I publish results for different outcomes from the same study?

Not if outcomes are substantially different and not specified in a prior publication. For example, if a trial first published cardiovascular outcomes and you later publish metabolic outcomes from the same cohort, this is justified as a secondary analysis—provided you clearly state it is from a previously published trial and properly attribute the earlier work.

Can I publish the same data in a journal and a conference proceeding?

Only if disclosed and if the journal allows it (many do for conference abstracts). Full journal articles and full conference papers presenting the same results should not be published without explicit acknowledgment and justification. The journal should know that a similar paper is or has been presented elsewhere.

What is salami slicing exactly? How do I know if I'm doing it?

Salami slicing is splitting one study into multiple papers with minimal novel content in each. For example, if your study measured 20 outcomes and you publish 20 separate papers, each reporting only one outcome with identical methods, this is prohibited. Legitimate reasons for multiple papers include methodological focus (one paper on methods, one on results), pre-specified subgroup analyses, or genuinely separate research questions. If you must ask whether each paper is justified, the answer is likely no.

If I find I accidentally published the same data twice, what should I do?

Contact the journal editors of both papers immediately. Provide a full explanation and documentation of the timeline (e.g., you forgot the earlier publication, it was under a different author order, etc.). Cooperate with their investigation. Even inadvertent duplication results in retraction of the later paper and a correction notice, but self-reporting and full transparency mitigate consequences.

Does the 'related articles' section of papers mean duplication is acceptable?

No. Listing a related article acknowledges that prior work exists, but the new paper must present genuinely new results or analysis. Simply relabeling or reframing identical results is not permitted.

Sources

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (2023). COPE Guidelines. Flowcharts and Advice on Publication Ethics. COPE. link ↗
  2. Hewitt, J. B., Larson, E., & Larson, R. (2011). Duplicate Publication and the Web: A Recipe for Confusion. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(2), 129–131. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Duplicate Publication and Salami Slicing in Academic Research. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/publication-ethics/duplicate-publication

Related methods

Article Retraction ProcessCOPE Guidelines for Publication EthicsICMJE Authorship CriteriaPlagiarism in Academic Research

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Article Retraction ProcessPublication Ethics↔ compare
  • COPE Guidelines for Publication EthicsPublication Ethics↔ compare
  • ICMJE Authorship CriteriaPublication Ethics↔ compare
  • Plagiarism in Academic ResearchPublication Ethics↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

Article Retraction ProcessCOPE Guidelines for Publication EthicsICMJE Authorship CriteriaPlagiarism in Academic Research

Similar methods

Self-Plagiarism and Text RecyclingPlagiarism in Academic ResearchArticle Retraction ProcessCOPE Guidelines for Publication EthicsData Fabrication and FalsificationResearch MisconductData Sharing and Open ScienceVerbatim Plagiarism

Related reference concepts

Publication BiasReproducible ResearchPublication BiasSystematic ReviewSTROBE Statement and Observational Study ReportingScoping Review

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Duplicate Publication and Salami Slicing (Duplicate Publication and Salami Slicing in Academic Research). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/publication-ethics/duplicate-publication · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Subfamily
publication-misconduct
Year
1997
Type
Standard
Related methods
Article Retraction ProcessCOPE Guidelines for Publication EthicsICMJE Authorship CriteriaPlagiarism in Academic Research
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account