The process of breaking up research is dangerous one, according to UH's Big Idea. Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

Salami slicing, breaking a paper on a single study up into smaller “slices” and publishing them in more than one journal, is broadly discouraged and considered unethical. Why does the practice persist? What do PIs believe are the benefits of doing it?

Two problems

Breaking up research into smaller slices can have serious consequences for scientific integrity. Researchers, especially younger researchers, may get used to looking at data in smaller pieces and not as a whole. This is dangerous from an academic perspective as valuable conclusions, that could have been derived if the data were presented as a whole, are overlooked.

Further, salami slicing of data may do more harm than good to a researcher’s career over time because it significantly reduces their chances of publishing in high impact journals, thereby lessening the weight of their accrued body of work.

One reason salami slicing still persists, is that there is a veritable avalanche of papers vying for publication. And the number seems to be steadily increasing.

“The academic market became more competitive after the nation’s economic downturn, in 2008,” said Rodica Damian, UH associate professor of psychology. “We saw a lot of competition between those with Ph.D.s and those who were conducting postdoc research. Before, you needed a postdoc if you were in Biology, for instance – but you didn’t need one if you had a doctorate in Psychology. That is no longer the case.”

Another reason salami slicing might persist is that advisors may suggest to a graduate student that they write a series of simpler papers as opposed to a more complex paper consisting of multiple measurements. A researcher might get these “single-lens papers” published much more quickly than their multi-faceted counterparts, due to the amount of background research the journal’s editors need to do on the more complicated papers.

How to avoid self-plagiarism

Salami slicing is not necessarily self-plagiarism, but often the practice does feature a large amount of “text overlap,” according to Miguel Roig, Ph.D. on the website of the Office of Research Integrity for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. One example Roig gives is as follows:

“Several months ago, for example, we received a manuscript describing a controlled intervention in a birthing center. The authors sent the results on the mothers to us, and the results on the infants to another journal. The two outcomes would have more appropriately been reported together…The important point is that readers need to be made aware that the data being reported were collected in the context of a larger study.”

The Big Idea

An article published by the NIH suggests this rule of thumb: “If the ‘slice’ of the study in question tests a different hypothesis as opposed to the larger study or has a distinct methodology or populations being studied, then it is acceptable to publish it separately.”

However, when a colleague is trying to do a meta analysis, they need to know what your study actually measured. “One thing you can do to avoid salami slicing,” said Damian, “is to pre-register all the projects you’re planning to do from a specific data set. Then ask yourself, do they use different hypotheses, measures, literatures, etc.”

After all is said and done, are they substantively methodically different research papers? If so, they can be sent to different, separate journals.

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Sarah Hill, the author of this piece, is the communications manager for the UH Division of Research.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston doctor aims to revolutionize hearing aid industry with tiny implant

small but mighty

“What is the future of hearing aids?” That’s the question that led to a potential revolution.

“The current hearing aid market and technology is old, and there are little incremental improvements, but really no significant, radical new ideas, and I like to challenge the status quo,” says Dr. Ron Moses, an ENT specialist and surgeon at Houston Methodist.

Moses is the creator of NanoEar, which he calls “the world’s smallest hearing aid.” NanoEar is an implantable device that combines the invisibility of a micro-sized tympanostomy tube with more power—and a superior hearing experience—than the best behind-the-ear hearing aid.

“You put the NanoEar inside of the eardrum in an in-office procedure that takes literally five minutes,” Moses says.

As Moses explains, because of how the human cochlea is formed, its nerves break down over time. It’s simply an inevitability that if we live long enough, we will need hearing aids.

“The question is, ‘Are we going to all be satisfied with what exists?’” he asks.

Moses says that currently, only about 20 percent of patients who need hearing aids have them. That’s because of the combination of the stigma, the expense, and the hassle and discomfort associated with the hearing aids currently available on the market. That leaves 80 percent untapped among a population of 466 million people with hearing impairment, and more to come as our population ages. In a nearly $7 billion global market, that additional 80 percent could mean big money.

Moses initially patented a version of the invention in 2000, but says that it took finding the right team to incorporate as NanoEar. That took place in 2016, when he joined forces with cofounders Michael Moore and Willem Vermaat, now the company’s president and CFO, respectively. Moore is a mechanical engineer, while Vermaat is a “financial guru;” both are repeat entrepreneurs in the biotech space.

Today, NanoEar has nine active patents. The company’s technical advisors include “the genius behind developing the brains in this device,” Chris Salthouse; NASA battery engineer Will West; Dutch physicist and audiologist Joris Dirckx; and Daniel Spitz, a third-generation master watchmaker and the original guitarist for the famed metal band Anthrax.

The NanoEar concept has done proof-of-concept testing on both cadavers at the University of Antwerp and on chinchillas, which are excellent models for human hearing, at Tulane University. As part of the TMC Innovation Institute program in 2017, the NanoEar team met with FDA advisors, who told them that they might be eligible for an expedited pathway to approval.

Thus far, NanoEar has raised about $900,000 to get its nine patents and perform its proof-of-concept experiments. The next step is to build the prototype, but completing it will take $2.75 million of seed funding.

Despite the potential for making global change, Moses has said it’s been challenging to raise funds for his innovation.

“We're hoping to find that group of people or person who may want to hear their children or grandchildren better. They may want to join with others and bring a team of investors to offset that risk, to move this forward, because we already have a world-class team ready to go,” he says.

To that end, NanoEar has partnered with Austin-based Capital Factory to help with their raise. “I have reached out to their entire network and am getting a lot of interest, a lot of interest,” says Moses. “But in the end, of course, we need the money.”

It will likely, quite literally, be a sound investment in the future of how we all hear the next generation.

Houston VC funding surged in Q1 2025 to highest level in years, report says

by the numbers

First-quarter funding for Houston-area startups just hit its highest level since 2022, according to the latest PitchBook-NVCA Venture Monitor. But fundraising in subsequent quarters might not be as robust thanks to ongoing economic turmoil, the report warns.

In the first quarter of 2025, Houston-area startups raised $544.2 million in venture capital from investors, PitchBook-NVCA data shows. That compares with $263.5 million in Q1 2024 and $344.5 million in Q1 2023. For the first quarter of 2022, local startups nabbed $745.5 million in venture capital.

The Houston-area total for first-quarter VC funding this year fell well short of the sum for the Austin area (more than $3.3 billion) and Dallas-Fort Worth ($696.8 million), according to PitchBook-NVCA data.

While first-quarter 2025 funding for Houston-area startups got a boost, the number of VC deals declined versus the first quarters of 2024, 2023 and 2022. The PitchBook-NVCA Monitor reported 37 local VC deals in this year’s first quarter, compared with 45 during the same period in 2024, 53 in 2023, and 57 in 2022.

The PitchBook-NVCA report indicates fundraising figures for the Houston area, the Austin area, Dallas-Fort Worth and other markets might shrink in upcoming quarters.

“Should the latest iteration of tariffs stand, we expect significant pressure on fundraising and dealmaking in the near term as investors sit on the sidelines and wait for signs of market stabilization,” the report says.

Due to new trade tariffs and policy shifts, the chances of an upcoming rebound in the VC market have likely faded, says Nizar Tarhuni, executive vice president of research and market intelligence at PitchBook.

“These impacts amplify economic uncertainty and could further disrupt the private markets by complicating investment decisions, supply chains, exit windows, and portfolio strategies,” Tarhuni says. “While this may eventually lead to new domestic investment and create opportunities, the overall environment is facing volatility, hesitation, and structural change.”