Salami Publishing: Tips for writing multiple journal papers from one research project without slicing too thin

All scientific inquiry originates in the broader conversation of ‘why’...?

Why is it this way? Why isn’t it that way?

Why does this happen? Why does that matter?

When I sit down to start writing a new journal paper, I remind myself that my purpose is not to report or summarize my research project independently, but rather to participate in a conversation about it—to either extend (additional evidence) or contradict (different evidence) what we know. I ask myself: what is the one important finding that I want to contribute to the ‘why’ conversation?

What is my big idea?

To answer these questions, I make a long messy bullet list of all the possible topics I could develop into papers, ranging from broad to specific, methodological to empirical, field-specific to multidisciplinary. Some topics end up overlapping, whereas others seem to be in opposition, and some are even a bit fringe because I am always inspired by emergent findings.

As I look through my list, I am frustratingly aware that I don’t have the time to develop every stream-of-conscience topic into a journal paper—and, actually, most of my ideas are underdeveloped and would require a lot of work to be worthwhile, such as an extended review of the literature or another round of data analysis.

So how do I prioritize and pick? 

In the climate of publish or perish, I want to make the most out of my research. That means producing several papers from one study. However, the risk is salami publishing.

Duplicate (or salami) publication is when you slice too thin…versus separating stand-alone strong single ideas (multiple arguments from the same study).[i], [ii]

How do I balance the need to maximize publications without slicing so thin my literature review and methods are largely duplicated (self-plagiarism!) across papers (salami publishing!)?

I have some tips.

The first thing I ask myself (and my research team) is:

What is the broad important finding?

That big idea should be developed into a high-quality paper and submitted to the highest impact journal.

Next: Are there secondary findings? Did we use a novel approach? I consider the entire research process from literature review to final analysis for possible topics…

Here are five ways you can brainstorm paper topics...

01_Slice - Tools vs. Evidence

If your study developed a new methodological approach, interpreted a theoretical framework in a new context, or went deep into the literature on your broader topic of inquiry, consider one paper focused on methods/theory/literature review (a new tool to collect data) and one focused on findings (evidence collected with the new tool). If you publish your ‘tool’ paper first, you can cite it in your ‘evidence’ paper. How is a methods paper about a new tool different from one about your new evidence? Answer: It is not about the data! Use a sample of your data as a proof of concept to show how your new tool works in practice. Focus on how your tool enables better conceptualization, data collection, and interpretation—de-emphasize the data itself…it takes on a supporting role only.

02_Dice - Phases

Large research projects are often designed in several phases, with one building upon the next.

• Did you conduct a pilot study or proof of concept prior to the main data collection phase?
• Did you start with a broad quantitative survey before conducting qualitative focus groups?
• Did you sample a large population before selecting a specific group to sample for a more in-depth inquiry?
• Did you conduct the same study in one location and then another?

There are many reasons to roll out a research project in phases. One paper might focus on baseline health or environmental conditions, whereas a second paper focuses on case comparison or pre-post interventions. Do you have qualitative data that can be synthesized in one paper and quantitative data that can produce a more meaningful interpretation in another?

03_Mince - Hypotheses/Assumptions

If your research project tested hypothesis, or you started with a set of assumptions, you can consider converting them into core arguments. These can be the starting point for discrete papers. This works best if your hypotheses are not too similar. If you have several hypotheses, consider grouping two or more into one cohesive argument. Learn how to turn a hypothesis or assumption into an argument in this free video.

04_Chop - Discipline

If you are part of an interdisciplinary research team, it would be beneficial to publish in different disciplinary journals with an emphasis on an important outcome of your research that is most relevant to the respective audience. For example, I have often worked on teams with sociologists, community design researchers, and public health practitioners. Brainstorm topics that appeal to specific disciplines represented by your team—have the team member(s) most aligned with that discipline take the lead author role. Don’t forget your broad interdisciplinary reader either—one holistic paper could make it into a high impact journal.

05_Julienne - Scientific vs. Practical

Scientific advancement isn’t useful unless it is put to practice. How directly does your research relate to real world application? Scientific journals cover a broad spectrum. Consider if you can extend your research by translating it in the context of policy or practice and find a good fit journal that publishes that kind of paper. Journal publishers (like Wiley and Elsevier) offer online journal finders where you can put in an abstract and they will recommend their best fit journals. Or check out: Researcher.Life - which accesses a global database.

One more...Ask AI

Brainstorming ideas can help you take a step back and re-situate your research in the broader scientific ecosystem—especially after being immersed in the trees (i.e., data). If you get stuck or just want to see if you’ve thought of every angle, check in with AI—I use Chat GPT or Claude AI depending on my mood. Here is a script to get you started: “I have just completed a research project and I need help coming up with ideas for writing peer review journal papers. Can you give me 5 topic ideas?”

I asked Claude AI, which I had recently used to update my CV—so it had a point of reference on my subject expertise. Here is the output:

Of course! To tailor the topic ideas effectively, I'd ideally want a bit of context about your research project (e.g., your research question, methods, key findings, or the field it's in). But for now, here are five broadly applicable and adaptable peer-reviewed journal article topic ideas based on common themes in social science and human-environment research:

1. "Reframing Community Resilience: Local Knowledge and Adaptive Strategies in [Your Study Context]"
   Explore how communities in your study area understand and respond to change, particularly environmental or food system-related stresses, and how their strategies challenge or complement dominant resilience frameworks.
2. "Participatory Design as Praxis: Lessons from Co-Designing with [Community or Stakeholder Group]"
   Focus on the participatory or community-based design process you used, analyzing its outcomes, tensions, and contributions to equitable knowledge production or intervention design.
3. "Food Security Beyond Metrics: Narratives of Agency and Access in [Study Site]"
   Analyze qualitative data to foreground lived experiences of food insecurity, revealing dynamics that typical indicators might overlook.
4. "Situated Systems Thinking: Mapping Socio-Ecological Relationships in [Community or Region]"
   Use systems maps or relational diagrams to illustrate complex human-environment interactions and propose new analytical frameworks for studying them.
5. "From Research to Relationship: Reflexive Practices in Ethical Community Engagement"
   Critically reflect on your research process, focusing on power dynamics, trust-building, and ethical dilemmas in community-based research.

Would you like to share more details about your project so I can refine or expand on these ideas?

The next step for me would be to start to articulate a core argument for the most appealing options, which I could then start to develop into my first priority paper.

A word of caution:

AI is an amazing helper but it cannot replace your (expert) human brain.

I’ll blog more about AI in an upcoming post…

Final thoughts

To avoid salami publishing, keep in mind that a journal paper requires a stand-alone strong single idea--your core argument! Check out my free video here on developing your core argument.

Once you have a plan for separate stand-alone papers, start with the one that requires the least amount of new literature review, analysis, and interpretation. You will be able to draft it quickly, which will set you up to be motivated to hop onto the second paper.

As you start to organize your paper(s), notice if new ideas pop up. You might find that there is enough excluded from your current paper to write a third paper...or forth!  That's great! Focus on that after you publish this one!

As you go forward with a second or more publications using the same topic, be up front about it in your paper--acknowledge that it is part of a larger study or that different content was published elsewhere--and cite that other paper...

But keep in mind that each paper must stand alone. Never assume your reader will read the other paper—make sure you give enough information to make each paper cohesive.

Eventually, quality over quantity matters. More papers do not mean more citations.

Finally, check out my free video on collaborating on a research paper.

And while you are at it—join the Publish It! Community and share your experiences with other academic writers. It’s free!

[i] Altay S, Koçak Z. Multiple Publications From the Same Dataset: Is It Acceptable? Balkan Med J. 2021 Sep;38(5):263-264. doi: 10.5152/balkanmedj.2021.21008. PMID: 34462256; PMCID: PMC8880828.- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8880828/

[ii] Watson, Roger, et al. "How many papers can be published from one study?." Journal of Advanced Nursing 71.11 (2015): 2457-2460 - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jan.12600