Salami Science in the Age of Open Data: Déjà lu and Accountability in Management and Business Research
Main Article Content
Wesley Mendes-Da-Silva
Cristiana Cerqueira Leal
Abstract
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.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
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. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2021200194
Section
Editorial
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Since mid-February of 2023, the authors retain the copyright relating to their article and grant the journal RAC, from ANPAD, the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0), as stated in the article’s PDF document. This license provides that the article published can be shared (allows you to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapted (allows you to remix, transform, and create from the material for any purpose, even commercial) by anyone.
After article acceptance, the authors must sign a Term of Authorization for Publication, which is sent to the authors by e-mail for electronic signature before publication.
References
Adams, J., Pendlebury, D., Potter, R., & Szomszor, M. (2019). Global research report multi-authorship and research analytics. Institute for Scientific Information. Retrieved from https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/dlm_uploads/2019/12/WS419558643_ISI_Global_Research_Report_6_v9_RGB_SP.pdf
Academy of Management. (2020). AOM Code of Ethics. Academy of Management. Retrieved from https://aom.org/about-aom/governance/ethics/code-of-ethics
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 https://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/US_NSF/N070717C.pdf
Britigan, B., Strauss, A., & Susman, J. (2010). Salami science or editorial imperialism? Journal of Pediatrics, 157(3), 518-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.07.034
Camargo, K. R., Jr. (2013). Produção científica: Avaliação da qualidade ou ficção contábil? Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 29(9), 1707-1711. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00115413
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.012
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 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/12/covid-19-studies-based-on-flawed-surgisphere-data-force-medical-journals-to-review-processes
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0757-y
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 http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/v21n6p200.pdf
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12577
Feeg, V. D. (1992). Duplicate publication or salami science? Pediatric Nursing, 18(6), 550. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1470485/
Génova, G., Astudillo, H., & Fraga, A. (2016). The scientometric bubble considered harmful. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 227-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9632-6
Giglio, S., Kuhnen, C., Baker, S., Diamond, R. (2019, January 25). New datasets and methods in finance research [Video file]. Video posted to https://youtu.be/-cWeU1VfoMw
Gomes, H. (2020, June 06). Covid-19. Publicações científicas forçadas a reconsiderar processos de revisão após estudos com dados “seriamente defeituosos”. Expresso. Retrieved from https://expresso.pt/coronavirus/2020-06-12-Covid-19.-Publicacoes-cientificas-forcadas-a-reconsiderar-processos-de-revisao-apos-estudos-com-dados-seriamente-defeituosos
Hoit, J. D. (2007). Salami science. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(2), 94. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2007/013)
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12056
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1766759
Irwin, S., & Winterton, M. (2012). Qualitative secondary analysis: A guide to practice. Timescapes Methods Guides Series 2012 [Guide nº 19]. Retrieved from http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/methods-guides/timescapes-irwin-secondary-analysis.pdf
Irwin, S., Bornat, J., & Winterton, M. (2012). Timescapes secondary analysis: Comparison, context and working across data sets. Qualitative Research, 12(1), 66-80. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1468794111426234
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12439
Johnson, C. (2006). Repetitive, duplicate, and redundant publications: A review for authors and readers. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 29(7), 505-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.07.001
Karabag, S. F., & Berggren, C. (2016). Misconduct, marginality and editorial practices in management, business and economics journals. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0159492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159492
Knutson, D. (2020, May). A selfish reason to share research data. The Official Plos Blog. Retrieved from https://theplosblog.plos.org/2020/05/a-selfish-reason-to-share-research-data/
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 https://www.ncrm.ac.uk/resources/online/teaching_big_qual/
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). https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2018180281
Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2018b). The promotion of transparency and the impact of research on business. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 22(4), 639-649. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2018180210
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. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020190403
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). https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2019190306
Mojon-Azzi, S. M., & Mojon, D. S. (2004). Scientific misconduct: From salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmic Research, 36(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1159/000076104
Nature Materials. (2005). The cost of salami slicing. Nature Materials, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat1305
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3578-3
Piwowar, H. A., & Vision, T. J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1, e175 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175
Pohlmann, M. (2019). Publish and perish? The business of predatory publishers and output orientation in science. Heigos Blog. Retrieved from https://heigos.hypotheses.org/11687
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2018.06.002
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4179-1
Smolčić, V. Š. (2013). Salami publication: Definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica, 23(3), 237-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.030
Stuebs, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2010). Ethics and the tax profession: Restoring the public interest focus. Accounting and Public Interest, 10(1), 13-35. https://doi.org/10.2308/api.2010.10.1.13
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518772743
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1257678
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134826
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09876-7
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067332
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12600
Wawer, J. (2019). How to stop salami science: Promotion of healthy trends in publishing behavior. Accountability in Research, 26(1), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1556099
White, K. (2019). Publication output, by region, country, or economy. Science & Engineering Indicators. Retrieved from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20206/publication-output-by-region-country-or-economy
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907306704
Academy of Management. (2020). AOM Code of Ethics. Academy of Management. Retrieved from https://aom.org/about-aom/governance/ethics/code-of-ethics
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 https://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/US_NSF/N070717C.pdf
Britigan, B., Strauss, A., & Susman, J. (2010). Salami science or editorial imperialism? Journal of Pediatrics, 157(3), 518-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.07.034
Camargo, K. R., Jr. (2013). Produção científica: Avaliação da qualidade ou ficção contábil? Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 29(9), 1707-1711. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00115413
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.012
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 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/12/covid-19-studies-based-on-flawed-surgisphere-data-force-medical-journals-to-review-processes
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0757-y
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 http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/v21n6p200.pdf
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12577
Feeg, V. D. (1992). Duplicate publication or salami science? Pediatric Nursing, 18(6), 550. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1470485/
Génova, G., Astudillo, H., & Fraga, A. (2016). The scientometric bubble considered harmful. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 227-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9632-6
Giglio, S., Kuhnen, C., Baker, S., Diamond, R. (2019, January 25). New datasets and methods in finance research [Video file]. Video posted to https://youtu.be/-cWeU1VfoMw
Gomes, H. (2020, June 06). Covid-19. Publicações científicas forçadas a reconsiderar processos de revisão após estudos com dados “seriamente defeituosos”. Expresso. Retrieved from https://expresso.pt/coronavirus/2020-06-12-Covid-19.-Publicacoes-cientificas-forcadas-a-reconsiderar-processos-de-revisao-apos-estudos-com-dados-seriamente-defeituosos
Hoit, J. D. (2007). Salami science. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(2), 94. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2007/013)
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12056
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1766759
Irwin, S., & Winterton, M. (2012). Qualitative secondary analysis: A guide to practice. Timescapes Methods Guides Series 2012 [Guide nº 19]. Retrieved from http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/methods-guides/timescapes-irwin-secondary-analysis.pdf
Irwin, S., Bornat, J., & Winterton, M. (2012). Timescapes secondary analysis: Comparison, context and working across data sets. Qualitative Research, 12(1), 66-80. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1468794111426234
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12439
Johnson, C. (2006). Repetitive, duplicate, and redundant publications: A review for authors and readers. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 29(7), 505-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.07.001
Karabag, S. F., & Berggren, C. (2016). Misconduct, marginality and editorial practices in management, business and economics journals. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0159492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159492
Knutson, D. (2020, May). A selfish reason to share research data. The Official Plos Blog. Retrieved from https://theplosblog.plos.org/2020/05/a-selfish-reason-to-share-research-data/
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 https://www.ncrm.ac.uk/resources/online/teaching_big_qual/
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). https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2018180281
Mendes-Da-Silva, W. (2018b). The promotion of transparency and the impact of research on business. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 22(4), 639-649. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2018180210
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. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020190403
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). https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2019190306
Mojon-Azzi, S. M., & Mojon, D. S. (2004). Scientific misconduct: From salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmic Research, 36(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1159/000076104
Nature Materials. (2005). The cost of salami slicing. Nature Materials, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat1305
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3578-3
Piwowar, H. A., & Vision, T. J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1, e175 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175
Pohlmann, M. (2019). Publish and perish? The business of predatory publishers and output orientation in science. Heigos Blog. Retrieved from https://heigos.hypotheses.org/11687
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2018.06.002
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4179-1
Smolčić, V. Š. (2013). Salami publication: Definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica, 23(3), 237-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.030
Stuebs, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2010). Ethics and the tax profession: Restoring the public interest focus. Accounting and Public Interest, 10(1), 13-35. https://doi.org/10.2308/api.2010.10.1.13
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518772743
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1257678
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134826
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09876-7
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067332
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12600
Wawer, J. (2019). How to stop salami science: Promotion of healthy trends in publishing behavior. Accountability in Research, 26(1), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1556099
White, K. (2019). Publication output, by region, country, or economy. Science & Engineering Indicators. Retrieved from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20206/publication-output-by-region-country-or-economy
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907306704