Salami Science in the Age of Open Data: Déjà lu and Accountability in Management and Business Research

Main Article Content

Wesley Mendes-Da-Silva orcid
Cristiana Cerqueira Leal orcid


The growth in the number of scientific research articles that are daily made available to society through their publication in scientific journals has been explicit. In fact, as illustrated by Table 1, in 2018 approximately 2.6 million scientific articles were published, which suggests an annual growth in the area of 3.8% since 2008. During this period, while economically developed countries such as the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada have presented annual growth rates inferior to the world average (0.71%, 1.28%, 0.67%, and 1.19% respectively), there has been a significant percentage growth in the number of publications in economically emerging countries — including the annual growth rates of China (7.81%), India (10.73%), Russia (9.88%), Brazil (5.42%), and Iran (10.99%).
A priori this growth is very positive, since scientific publications continue to be the best way to validate knowledge and for the authors to receive recognized credit. However, it imposes a group of equally growing costs. We can highlight not just financial costs, but also costs that tend to be forgotten, such as more and more onerous workloads for evaluators and the allocation of resources to process submissions (yes, there is a considerable cost in these activities). Examined together with observed conditions of stocks and flows, it appears reasonable to examine and maintain under observation the sustainability of scientific publication as we know it, especially in terms of open access. The field of management and business, like other fields of knowledge, is subject to these preoccupations, and the Journal of Contemporary Administration (RAC) shares these concerns.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Mendes-Da-Silva, W., & Cerqueira Leal, C. (2020). Salami Science in the Age of Open Data: Déjà lu and Accountability in Management and Business Research. Journal of Contemporary Administration, 25(1), e200194.


Adams, J., Pendlebury, D., Potter, R., & Szomszor, M. (2019). Global research report multi-authorship and research analytics. Institute for Scientific Information. Retrieved from
Academy of Management. (2020). AOM Code of Ethics. Academy of Management. Retrieved from
Bell, R. K., Hill, D., & Lehming, R. F. (2007), The changing research and publication environment in american research universities [Working Paper nº SRS 07-204]. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Arlington, VA, USA. Retrieved from
Britigan, B., Strauss, A., & Susman, J. (2010). Salami science or editorial imperialism? Journal of Pediatrics, 157(3), 518-519.
Camargo, K. R., Jr. (2013). Produção científica: Avaliação da qualidade ou ficção contábil? Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 29(9), 1707-1711.
Colavizza, G., Hrynaszkiewicz, I., Staden, I., Whitaker, K., & McGillivray, B. (2020). The citation advantage of linking publications to research data. PLoS ONE, 15(4), e0230416.
Covin, J. G., & McMullen, J. S. (2019). Programmatic research and the case for designing and publishing from rich, multifaceted datasets: Issues and recommendations. Journal of Business Research, 101, 40-46.
Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Davey, M. (2020, June 12). Covid-19 studies based on flawed surgisphere data force medical journals to review processes. The Guardian. Retrieved from
Davidson, E., Edwards, R., Jamieson, L., & Weller, S. (2019). Big data, qualitative style: A breadth-and-depth method for working with large amounts of secondary qualitative data. Quality & Quantity, 53, 363-376.
Eden, L., Dean, K. L., & Vaaler, P. M. (2018). The ethical professor: A practical guide to research, teaching, and professional life. New York: Routledge.
Elstein A. S., Cadmus, C., Pitkin, R., Mundy, D., & McDowell, C. (1998). Salami science: Are we still allowing it? CSE Annual Meeting Reports. Retrieved from
Engle, C. R. (2018). Evaluation of contributions of aquaculture researchers: The need to change researcher incentives to reduce salami science in aquaculture. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 49(6), 968-970.
Feeg, V. D. (1992). Duplicate publication or salami science? Pediatric Nursing, 18(6), 550. Retrieved from
Génova, G., Astudillo, H., & Fraga, A. (2016). The scientometric bubble considered harmful. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 227-235.
Giglio, S., Kuhnen, C., Baker, S., Diamond, R. (2019, January 25). New datasets and methods in finance research [Video file]. Video posted to
Gomes, H. (2020, June 06). Covid-19. Publicações científicas forçadas a reconsiderar processos de revisão após estudos com dados “seriamente defeituosos”. Expresso. Retrieved from
Hoit, J. D. (2007). Salami science. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(2), 94.
Honig, B., Lampel, J., Siegel, D., & Drnevich, P. (2014). Ethics in the production and dissemination of management research: Institutional failure or individual fallibility? Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 118-142.
Hughes, K., Hughes, J., & Tarrant, A. (2020). Re-approaching interview data through qualitative secondary analysis: Interviews with internet gamblers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology.
Irwin, S., & Winterton, M. (2012). Qualitative secondary analysis: A guide to practice. Timescapes Methods Guides Series 2012 [Guide nº 19]. Retrieved from
Irwin, S., Bornat, J., & Winterton, M. (2012). Timescapes secondary analysis: Comparison, context and working across data sets. Qualitative Research, 12(1), 66-80.
Jackson, D., Walter, G., Daly, J., & Cleary, M. J. (2014) Editorial: multiple outputs from single studies: acceptable division of findings vs. ‘salami’ slicing. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23(1–2): 1–2.
Johnson, C. (2006). Repetitive, duplicate, and redundant publications: A review for authors and readers. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 29(7), 505-509.
Karabag, S. F., & Berggren, C. (2016). Misconduct, marginality and editorial practices in management, business and economics journals. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0159492.
Knutson, D. (2020, May). A selfish reason to share research data. The Official Plos Blog. Retrieved from
Laake, P., Benestad, H. B., & Olsen, B. R. (2007). Research methodology in the medical and biological sciences. New York: Elsevier.
Lewthwaite, S., Jamieson, L., Weller, S., Edwards, R. & Nind, M. (2020). Teaching how to analyse large volumes of secondary qualitative data. National centre for research methods online learning resource. Retrieved from
Martins, H. (2021). Artigo de Apresentação da Edição de Tutorials, Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 25(1).
Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2018a). Reconhecimento da contribuição do avaliador anônimo. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 22(5).
Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2018b). The promotion of transparency and the impact of research on business. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 22(4), 639-649.
Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2019a). Meus dados, minha vida: Objetivos individuais e papel da comunidade de pesquisadores na área de negócios. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 24(2), 197-200.
Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2019b). Temos sido transparentes o suficiente? Desafios à replicabilidade e à credibilidade da pesquisa na área de negócios. Revista De Administração Contemporânea, 23(5).
Mojon-Azzi, S. M., & Mojon, D. S. (2004). Scientific misconduct: From salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmic Research, 36(1), 1-3.
Nature Materials. (2005). The cost of salami slicing. Nature Materials, 4(1), 1.
Perlin, M. S., Imasato, T., & Borenstein, D. (2018). Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study. Scientometrics, 116(1), 255-273.
Pfleegor, A. G., Katz, M., Bowers, M. T. (2019). Publish, perish, or salami slice? Authorship ethics in an emerging field. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(1), 189-208.
Piwowar, H. A., & Vision, T. J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1, e175
Pohlmann, M. (2019). Publish and perish? The business of predatory publishers and output orientation in science. Heigos Blog. Retrieved from
Raaij, E. M. V. (2018). Déjà lu: On the limits of data reuse across multiple publications. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 24(3), 183-191.
Rupp, M., Anastasopoulou, L., Wintermeyer, E., Malhaan, D., El Khassawna, T., & Heiss, C. (2019). Predatory journals: A major threat in orthopaedic research. International Orthopaedics, 43(3), 509–517.
Smolčić, V. Š. (2013). Salami publication: Definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica, 23(3), 237-241.
Stuebs, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2010). Ethics and the tax profession: Restoring the public interest focus. Accounting and Public Interest, 10(1), 13-35.
Tarrant, A., & Hughes, K. (2019). Qualitative secondary analysis: building longitudinal samples to understand men’s generational identities in low income contexts. Sociology, 53(3), 538-553.
Tarrant, A. (2017). Getting out of the swamp? Methodological reflections on using qualitative secondary analysis to develop research design. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 599-611.
Tenopir, C., Dalton, E. D., Allard, S., Frame, M., Pjesivac, I., Birch, B., Pollock, D., & Dorsett, K. (2015) Changes in data sharing and data reuse practices and perceptions among scientists worldwide. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0134826.
Tolsgaard, M. G., Ellaway, R., Woods, N., & Norman, G. (2019). Salami-slicing and plagiarism: How should we respond?. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24, 3-14.
Wallis, J. C., Rolando, E., Borgman, C. L. (2013). If we share data, will anyone use them? Data sharing and reuse in the long tail of science and technology. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e67332.
Watson, R., Pickler, R., Noyes, J., Perry, L., Roe, B., Hayter, M., & Hueter, I. (2014). How many papers can be published from one study? Leading Global Nursing Research, 71(11), 2457-2460.
Wawer, J. (2019). How to stop salami science: Promotion of healthy trends in publishing behavior. Accountability in Research, 26(1), 33-48.
White, K. (2019). Publication output, by region, country, or economy. Science & Engineering Indicators. Retrieved from
Zimmerman, A. S. (2008). New knowledge from old data: The role of standards in the sharing and reuse of ecological data. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(5), 631–652.