Просмотр новости
Найдите то, что Вас интересует
Спутники
РН
SpaceX
Роскосмос
NASA
СпутникиРНSpaceXРоскосмосNASAResearch ethics treats the fragmentation of research into least publishable units ('salami slicing') as unacceptable, whereas the digital infrastructure of science builds extreme fragmentation into the foundations of promising new formats – nanopublications, micropublications, machine-readable modules of knowledge. These practices are not identical but involve a common formal operation – dividing the scholarly message into smaller units that are published and cited separately; we propose to treat this contradiction as a problem of scholarly communication. The ban on fragmentation is historically tied to the printed journal article as the dominant form of the scholarly message and to counting contribution by the number of publications; machine-readable aggregation infrastructures make it possible to address and attribute contribution at the level of the individual result, changing the conditions under which such division harms scholarly communication. We do not abolish the moral assessment of fragmentation (misconduct vs. integrity) but complement it with a configurational one: the consequences of the operation depend on the form, purpose and addressee of the message – and the addressee of scholarly communication is, increasingly often, not only a human. Changes in the functioning of the communication infrastructure also raise the question of how evaluation systems should change and what can count as a unit of contribution to science.
Абалкина, А. (2023). Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia-based paper mill. Learned Publishing, 36(4), 689–702. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1574
Губа, К. С. (2022). Наукометрические показатели в оценке российских университетов: обзор исследований. Мир России, 31(1), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038X-2022-31-1-49-73
Кулешова, А. В., Подвойский, Д. Г. (2018). Парадоксы публикационной активности в поле современной российской науки: генезис, диагноз, тренды. Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены, (4), 169–210. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2018.4.10
Adams, N. N. (2022). Salami slicing: Clarifying common misconceptions for social science early-career researchers. SN Social Sciences, 2, 88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00389-6
Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. (2022). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13480728
Bechhofer, S., De Roure, D., Gamble, M., Goble, C., & Buchan, I. (2010). Research Objects: Towards exchange and reuse of digital knowledge. Nature Precedings. https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2010.4626.1
Broad, W. J. (1981). The publishing game: Getting more for less. Science, 211(4487), 1137–1139. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7008199
Budd, J. M., & Stewart, K. N. (2015). Is there such a thing as “least publishable unit”? An empirical investigation. LIBRES, 25(2), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.32655/libres.2015.2.1
Clark, T., Ciccarese, P. N., & Goble, C. A. (2014). Micropublications: A semantic model for claims, evidence, arguments and annotations in biomedical communications. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 5, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-5-28
COPE Council. (2024). Handling duplicated or redundant content (salami slicing). https://doi.org/10.24318/rmzj3nqm
Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Polity Press.
D'Angelo, C. A. (2025). Examining “salami slicing” publications as a side-effect of research performance evaluation: An empirical study. Journal of Data and Information Science, 10(1), 74–100. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2025-0005
Fırat, M. (2026). Post-document science: From static narratives to intelligent objects. Standards, 6(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards6020014
Gitelman, L. (2014). Paper knowledge: Toward a media history of documents. Duke University Press.
Groth, P., Gibson, A., & Velterop, J. (2010). The anatomy of a nanopublication. Information Services & Use, 30(1–2), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2010-0613
Hayles, N. K. (2010). How we read: Close, hyper, machine. ADE Bulletin, 150, 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1632/ade.150.62
Jackson, D., Walter, G., Daly, J., & Cleary, M. (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
Jaradeh, M. Y., Oelen, A., Farfar, K. E., Prinz, M., D'Souza, J., Kismihók, G., Stocker, M., & Auer, S. (2019). Open Research Knowledge Graph: Next generation infrastructure for semantic scholarly knowledge. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP '19) (pp. 243–246). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3360901.3364435
Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. Columbia University Press.
Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Decoupling the scholarly journal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00019
Refinetti, R. (1990). In defense of the least publishable unit. The FASEB Journal, 4(1), 128–129. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.4.1.2295373
Sathyanarayana Rao, T. S., & Andrade, C. (2016). Part publication: When it is ethical and when it is not. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 58(4), 357–358. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.196725
Shotton, D., Portwin, K., Klyne, G., & Miles, A. (2009). Adventures in semantic publishing: Exemplar semantic enhancements of a research article. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(4), e1000361. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000361
Stocker, M., Snyder, L., Anfuso, M., Ludwig, O., Thießen, F., Farfar, K. E., Haris, M., Oelen, A., & Jaradeh, M. Y. (2025). Rethinking the production and publication of machine-readable expressions of research findings. Scientific Data, 12, 677. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-04905-0
Šupak Smolčić, V. (2013). Salami publication: Definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica, 23(3), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.030
Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., et al. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18