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

Texas institute grants $12M to bring leading cancer researchers to Houston

cha-ching

Rice University has recruited a prominent Swedish cancer researcher thanks to a $6 million grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

It’s among $68 million in research grants recently awarded by the state agency, and six recruitment grants totaling $16 million to bring leading cancer researchers to Texas.

A news release from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) describes Pernilla Wittung-Stafshede of the Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, as “an accomplished and highly gifted biophysical scientist tackling complicated biological questions regarding the role of metals and metal dysregulation in various diseases. She pioneered a new research field around the role of metal ions in the folding and function of metalloproteins.”

Metalloproteins account for nearly half of all proteins in biology, according to the National Institutes of Health. They “catalyze some of the most difficult and yet important functions in [nature], such as photosynthesis and water oxidation,” the federal agency says.

Wittung-Stafshede, a professor of chemical biology and life sciences at Chalmers, is a former professor at Rice.

Aside from the money for Wittung-Stafshede, Houston recruitment grants also went to:

  • University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: $2 million to recruit Rosalie Griffin of the Mayo Clinic
  • Baylor College of Medicine: $2 million to recruit Dr. Nipun Verma of the Yale University School of Medicine
  • Baylor College of Medicine: $2 million to recruit Xin “Daniel” Gao of Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In Houston, cancer research grants were given to:

  • Baylor College of Medicine: $7.8 million
  • M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: $20.7 million
  • Rice University: $ 1 million
  • University of Houston: $1.2 million
  • University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston: $4.5 million

“The awards … represent the depth and diversity of CPRIT funding for cancer research in Texas,” says Kristen Doyle, CEO of CPRIT. “These grants develop new approaches to preventing, diagnosing, treating, and surviving cancer for all Texans.”

See the full list of awards here.

2 Houston startups win big at SXSW 2025 pitch competition

winner, winner

Houston had a strong showing at this week's SXSW Pitch showcase in Austin, with two local startups claiming top prizes in their respective categories.

Little Place Labs, a Houston space data startup, won the Security, GovTech & Space competition. Clean-tech company Helix Earth, which spun out of Rice University and was incubated at Greentown Labs, won in the Smart Cities, Transportation & Sustainability contest.

As one of SWSX's marquee events, held March 8-10, the pitch competition featured 45 finalists, selected from 589 applicants, in nine categories.

"We faced impressive competition from a well-chosen set of finalists, and we're honored to be chosen as the winners. One of the judges even commented, ‘Who knew you could make air conditioning sexy,’” Brad Husick, Helix's co-founder and chief business officer, said in a release.

Helix Earth was launched in 2022 and is known for its space capsule air filtration system that was co-developed for NASA. The commercial air conditioner add-on technology, now in a pilot phase, has been used to retrofit HVAC systems for commercial buildings and can save up to 50 percent of the net energy, cutting down on emissions and operating costs, according to the company. Its co-founder and CEO Rawand Rasheed was named to the Forbes 30 Under 30 Energy and Green Tech list for 2025.

“This win validates our mission to drive sustainable innovation in commercial air conditioning and beyond. We are excited about the future of Helix Earth and the impact we will have in reducing energy consumption and emissions," Rasheed said in a statement.

Little Place Labs echoed that sentiment with a post on LinkedIn celebrating the win.

"This all started with a simple mission: To deliver real-time space insights to help first responders, mission planners, and decision-makers act before problems arise,” the post read. "Today, that mission feels even stronger."

The company uses advanced AI and machine learning to deliver near-real-time space analytics for both ground and space-based applications. Its software aims to help first responders, mission planners and decision-makers detect anomalies and make informed decisions quickly. It was co-founded in 2020 at Oxford by Houstonian and CEO Bosco Lai and Gaurav Bajaj and participated in the 2023 AWS Space Accelerator.

Two other Houston companies were selected as finalists:

  • Trez, a Latino-focused fintech company that uses AI and voice-command payroll through WhatsApp to provide culturally relevant payroll and streamline financial operations for Latino business owners.
  • Tempesst Droneworx, a veteran-owned software company that's Harbinger software providing real-time contextual intelligence for early warning detection, reducing time to decision and speeding time to action.

Jesse Martinez, founder of invincible, and Anu Puvvada of KPMG were two judges representing Houston.

According to SXSW, 647 companies have participated in SXSW Pitch over the years, with over 93 percent receiving funding and acquisitions totaling nearly $23.2 billion. See the full list of 2025 winners here.