Abstract
Garry Walter, Rivendell Unit, Sydney, Australia:
In his ‘Letter from Jerusalem’ [1], Bloch regretted the preoccupation of authors with publishing several papers from the one study. Similarly, in an Editorial in the British Journal of Psychiatry, Kerr [2] drew attention to the issue of ‘salami publications’, the excessive division of the results of a study among several articles and distributed among a number of journals.
I share the above concerns but would also like to point out that not all salami is unkosher. As Kerr [2] acknowledges, sometimes two or three papers contain sufficient original material to merit independent publication. There are other scenarios. For example, in revising a paper, an author may be asked to delete material deemed ‘unnecessary’ in the original article or to rewrite a ‘regular article’ as a ‘brief report’. The author may then simply comply with the request, to secure the publication, or choose to debate the matter with the Editor, which may be fruitless. Now suppose the author still believes the removed material (and it may be quite substantial) is worthy of publication. There might be a case for submitting the material elsewhere, provided that there is no or minimal overlap with the ‘accepted’ paper, and that the author informs the next Editor about the other article. Or should the author discard hard-won data, abandon incisive comments and not seek other outlets?
There are further dilemmas. How are we to judge what might be termed ‘Clayton's salami’ publication, that based on the revisiting of a sample to extract new data and test new hypotheses which weren't considered or apparent originally? Should qualitative studies, essays and even ‘Letters to the Editor’ be shackled like quantitative research? They, too, if ‘subdivided’ might similarly add to the copious medical literature, distort their reader's appreciation of the importance of a particular subject and inflate a CV. What about pre-post studies? Should researchers wait until the follow-up data are collected and analysed before writing up the research? How are we to judge reviews of a particular subject which sometimes add little to previous reviews apart from including perhaps a handful of more recent studies?
In all of this, what is the role of a particular journal and whom should a journal satisfy? Of course, a psychiatric journal should be accountable to the psychiatric literature as a whole and should take heed of what is or isn't ‘out there’ already. But surely, first and foremost, a journal should be answerable to its subscribers, many of whom may not subscribe to, or have ready access to, other journals. These ‘single journal’ subscribers may not be aware, let alone bothered, if a review of the genetics of disorder x, y or z has recently appeared in another publication.
The area of duplicate publication, salami publication and ‘meat extender’ articles [3] (when a few more patients are added to an original series only to yield similar results) is indeed complex and there are no immediate solutions. What I might term the ‘vegan option’ (no salami, no meat extender) may be least offensive, ‘best practice’ and, for some, the most palatable form of publishing but, for the reasons given, this option is not always feasible. Perhaps it partly boils down to the publishing ethics and integrity of the would-be author(s) and to whether an author, at any stage of the research process, intends submitting more than one paper for the chief purpose of producing more than one publication. Of course, how you determine this is another matter.
In his Jerusalem dispatch, Bloch called for a ‘Declaration of Melbourne 2000’ (do I sense a wish to upstage another city's highlight that year?) which would focus on the ethical aspects of sharing psychiatric knowledge. May I suggest the following preliminary guidelines in relation to salami publication?
Authors should attempt to publish results from a study in as few articles as possible. If more than one paper is necessary, authors should ensure there is as little overlap as possible between articles. Editors should routinely ask authors who submit a paper to state whether similar papers from that study have already been published, submitted or are in preparation. Authors who have similar papers published, submitted or in preparation should be asked to indicate why further papers are needed. In deciding whether to accept or reject a paper, editors should consider the potential contribution of the paper to the journal and its subscribers as well as to the psychiatric literature as a whole.
There must be flexibility. Hopefully, these guidelines confront the problem of salami publication while taking into account the ‘real world’ situation. The subject is important. I trust these comments and suggestions will encourage further discussion and debate.