Least publishable unit

Last updated

In academic publishing, the least publishable unit (LPU), also smallest publishable unit (SPU), minimum publishable unit (MPU), loot, or publon, is the minimum amount of information that can be used to generate a publication in a peer-reviewed venue, such as a journal or a conference. (Maximum publishable unit and optimum publishable unit are also used.) [1] The term is often used as a joking, ironic, or derogatory reference to the strategy of artificially inflating quantity of publications.

Contents

Publication of the results of research is an essential part of science. The number of publications is often used to assess the work of a scientist and as a basis for distributing research funds. In order to achieve a high rank in such an assessment, there is a trend to split up research results into smaller parts that are published separately, thus inflating the number of publications. This process has been described as splitting the results into the smallest publishable units. [2] [3]

"Salami publication", sometimes also referred to as "salami slicing" or "salami science", is a variant of the smallest-publishable-unit strategy. In salami publishing, data gathered by one research project is separately reported (wholly or in part) in multiple end publications. Salami publishing, apparently named by analogy with the thin slices made from a larger salami sausage, is generally considered questionable when not explicitly labeled, as it may lead to the same data being counted multiple times as apparently independent results in aggregate studies. [4] [5] [6]

When data gathered in one research project are partially reported as if a single study, a problem of statistical significance can arise. Scientists typically use a 5% threshold to determine whether a hypothesis is supported by the results of a research project. If multiple hypotheses are being tested on a single research project, 1 in 20 hypotheses will by chance be supported by the research.[ dubious ] Partially reported research projects must use a more stringent threshold when testing for statistical significance but often do not do this. [7]

There is no consensus among academics about whether people should seek to make their publications least publishable units, and it has long been resisted by some journal editors. [3] Particularly for people just getting started in academic publication, writing a few small articles provides a way of getting used to how the system of peer review and professional publication works, and it does indeed help to boost publication count. [8] But publishing too many LPUs is thought[ by whom? ] not to impress peers when it comes time to seek promotion beyond the assistant professor (or equivalent) level. Also, LPUs may not always be the most efficient way to pass on knowledge, because they break up ideas into small pieces, sometimes forcing people to look up many cross-references. Multiple salami slices also occupy more journal pages than a single synthetic article that contains the same information. On the other hand, a small piece of information is easily digestible, and the reader may not need more information than what is in the LPU.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Research</span> Systematic study undertaken to increase knowledge

Research is "creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge". It involves the collection, organization and analysis of evidence to increase understanding of a topic, characterized by a particular attentiveness to controlling sources of bias and error. These activities are characterized by accounting and controlling for biases. A research project may be an expansion on past work in the field. To test the validity of instruments, procedures, or experiments, research may replicate elements of prior projects or the project as a whole.

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientific journal</span> Periodical journal publishing scientific research

In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by sharing findings from research with readers. They are normally specialized based on discipline, with authors picking which one they send their manuscripts to.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preprint</span> Academic paper prior to journal publication

In academic publishing, a preprint is a version of a scholarly or scientific paper that precedes formal peer review and publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly or scientific journal. The preprint may be available, often as a non-typeset version available free, before or after a paper is published in a journal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Academic publishing</span> Subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship

Academic publishing is the subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship. Most academic work is published in academic journal articles, books or theses. The part of academic written output that is not formally published but merely printed up or posted on the Internet is often called "grey literature". Most scientific and scholarly journals, and many academic and scholarly books, though not all, are based on some form of peer review or editorial refereeing to qualify texts for publication. Peer review quality and selectivity standards vary greatly from journal to journal, publisher to publisher, and field to field.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Academic journal</span> Peer-reviewed scholarly periodical

An academic journal or scholarly journal is a periodical publication in which scholarship relating to a particular academic discipline is published. Academic journals serve as permanent and transparent forums for the presentation, scrutiny, and discussion of research. They nearly universally require peer review or other scrutiny from contemporaries competent and established in their respective fields. Content typically takes the form of articles presenting original research, review articles, or book reviews. The purpose of an academic journal, according to Henry Oldenburg, is to give researchers a venue to "impart their knowledge to one another, and contribute what they can to the Grand design of improving natural knowledge, and perfecting all Philosophical Arts, and Sciences."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientific literature</span> Literary genre

Scientific literature comprises academic papers that report original empirical and theoretical work in the natural and social sciences. Within a field of research, relevant papers are often referred to as "the literature". Academic publishing is the process of contributing the results of one's research into the literature, which often requires a peer-review process.

Salami slicing tactics, also known as salami slicing, salami tactics, the salami-slice strategy, or salami attacks, is the practice of using a series of many small actions to produce a much larger action or result that would be difficult or unlawful to perform all at once.

"Publish or perish" is an aphorism describing the pressure to publish academic work in order to succeed in an academic career. Such institutional pressure is generally strongest at research universities. Some researchers have identified the publish or perish environment as a contributing factor to the replication crisis.

<i>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</i> Academic journal

The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the American Psychological Association that was established in 1965. It covers the fields of social and personality psychology. The editors-in-chief are Shinobu Kitayama, Colin Wayne Leach, and Richard E. Lucas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plagiarism</span> Using another authors work as if it was ones own original work

Plagiarism is the fraudulent representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work. Although precise definitions vary depending on the institution, in many countries and cultures plagiarism is considered a violation of academic integrity and journalistic ethics, as well as social norms around learning, teaching, research, fairness, respect, and responsibility. As such, a person or entity that is determined to have committed plagiarism is often subject to various punishments or sanctions, such as suspension, expulsion from school or work, fines, imprisonment, and other penalties.

ResearcherID is an identifying system for scientific authors. The system was introduced in January 2008 by Thomson Reuters Corporation.

Scholarly peer review or academic peer review is the process of having a draft version of a researcher's methods and findings reviewed by experts in the same field. Peer review is widely used for helping the academic publisher decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected for official publication in an academic journal, a monograph or in the proceedings of an academic conference. If the identities of authors are not revealed to each other, the procedure is called dual-anonymous peer review.

Coercive citation is an academic publishing practice in which an editor of a scientific or academic journal forces an author to add spurious citations to an article before the journal will agree to publish it. This is done to inflate the journal's impact factor, thus artificially boosting the journal's scientific reputation. Manipulation of impact factors and self-citation has long been frowned upon in academic circles; however, the results of a 2012 survey indicate that about 20% of academics working in economics, sociology, psychology, and multiple business disciplines have experienced coercive citation. Individual cases have also been reported in other disciplines.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predatory publishing</span> Fraudulent business model for scientific publications

Predatory publishing, also write-only publishing or deceptive publishing, is an exploitative academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors only superficially checking articles for quality and legitimacy, and without providing editorial and publishing services that legitimate academic journals provide, whether open access or not. Namely, the rejection rate of predatory journals is low, but seldom is zero. The phenomenon of "open access predatory publishers" was first noticed by Jeffrey Beall, when he described "publishers that are ready to publish any article for payment". However, criticisms about the label "predatory" have been raised. A lengthy review of the controversy started by Beall appears in The Journal of Academic Librarianship.

Invalid science consists of scientific claims based on experiments that cannot be reproduced or that are contradicted by experiments that can be reproduced. Recent analyses indicate that the proportion of retracted claims in the scientific literature is steadily increasing. The number of retractions has grown tenfold over the past decade, but they still make up approximately 0.2% of the 1.4m papers published annually in scholarly journals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Publons</span> Website for researchers to share and receive credit for peer review activity

Publons was a commercial website that provided a free service for academics to track, verify, and showcase their peer review and editorial contributions for academic journals. It was launched in 2012 and was bought by Clarivate in 2017. It claimed that over 3,000,000 researchers joined the site, adding more than one million reviews across 25,000 journals. In 2019, ResearcherID was integrated with Publons.

HARKing is an acronym coined by social psychologist Norbert Kerr that refers to the questionable research practice of “presenting a post hoc hypothesis in the introduction of a research report as if it were an a priori hypothesis”. Hence, a key characteristic of HARKing is that post hoc hypothesizing is falsely portrayed as a priori hypothesizing. HARKing may occur when a researcher tests an a priori hypothesis but then omits that hypothesis from their research report after they find out the results of their test; inappropriate forms of post hoc analysis and/or post hoc theorizing then may lead to a post hoc hypothesis.

Incremental research refers to an orientation in research and publishing directed toward numerous smaller projects each making only a small step relative to already established scientific ideas, methods and knowledge. It is considered an opposite to exploration of radically new or untested ideas, questions or approaches. State of the art technological and massive studies in regular or mainstream science are however not considered incremental, as even a single such project or publication, while possibly not containing major original ideas, contains simultaneously numerous improvements and/or high to achieve excellence and precision.

References

  1. Winning The Games Scientists Play, Carl J. Sindermann.
  2. Broad, William J. (13 March 1981), "The Publishing Game: Getting More for Less", Science, 211 (4487): 1137–1139, Bibcode:1981Sci...211.1137B, doi:10.1126/science.7008199, PMID   7008199 .
  3. 1 2 Broad, William; Wade, Nicholas (1983), Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science , London: Century Publishing, pp. 53–55, ISBN   0-7126-0243-7 .
  4. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing.
  5. Abraham, P. (2000). "Duplicate and salami publications". Journal of Postgraduate Medicine. 46 (2): 67–9. PMID   11013467.
  6. Chris Chambers and Petroc Sumner, "Replication is the only solution to scientific fraud", The Guardian.
  7. "Signs of the times", The Economist, February 24th 2007. This article is based on a presentation by Peter Austin to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  8. Whitney J. Owen, "In Defense of the Least Publishable Unit", The Chronicle of Higher Education.