Post Your Answer
2 months ago in Scholarly Publishing By Pooja
Is it considered "salami slicing" if I publish two papers from different chapters of my PhD thesis that use the same dataset but address distinct research questions?
My dissertation has three empirical chapters, each with a unique hypothesis, analyzed from one large dataset. I want to publish them as separate journal articles. A senior colleague warned this might be seen as "salami slicing" or duplicate publication. How do I ensure my publications are seen as distinct, legitimate contributions?
All Answers (2 Answers In All)
By Binita Sinha Answered 1 month ago
This is a critical boundary. Salami slicing is publishing multiple papers where each presents an incremental, minimal finding that should have been one substantive paper. What you're describing different research questions from one dataset can be legitimate if executed with transparency. Each paper must have:
- A distinct primary research question/hypothesis not addressed in the other.
- A unique methodological/analytical path (e.g., different variables, statistical models, qualitative codes).
- A separate narrative and discussion focused on its own question.
Crucially, in each paper's methods, you must disclose that the data is from a larger project and cite your other papers (or thesis) that use the same data. This shows integrity. The litmus test: could each paper stand alone as a meaningful contribution if the other didn't exist? If yes, you're likely in the clear. If they feel like two halves of a whole, consider combining them.
Replied 2 months ago
By Pooja
Thank you so much Binita this is really helpful
Reply to Binita Sinha
By Latesha Abendroth Answered 1 month ago
From my experience as both an author and a reviewer, using the same dataset across multiple papers is very common in PhD-based publishing and not automatically salami slicing. The red flag isn’t shared data; it’s fragmented insight. If each paper answers a genuinely different question that would interest a different reader or journal audience, that’s usually acceptable.
What often helps is being intentional about scope. For example, one paper might focus on theory-building or mechanism testing, while another emphasizes application, prediction, or policy implications. Reviewers tend to be comfortable with this when the overlap is clearly acknowledged and when there’s no recycled results section disguised with new wording. Transparency and clear positioning go a long way.
Replied 1 month ago
By Pooja
Thanks a lot! This really helps, especially the point about different audiences and scope. It’s comforting to hear this from a reviewer’s perspective too.
Reply to Latesha Abendroth
Related Questions