world view
‘Salami slicing’ helps careers but
harms science
Based on her interviews with senior academics, Taya Collyer, a PhD student in health
research, reflects on how academic evaluation that values quantity over quality pervasively
Credit: Taya Collyer
harms the scientific endeavour, leading even successful academics to retrospectively
question research decisions.
‘L
ate-career researchers’ can provide
context and contrast for early-
career publishing trends. As part
of my PhD, which focuses on the role
of disciplinary training in the design,
conduct and interpretation of research
about health, I interviewed 45 senior
academics who study health inequalities
and disparities, including epidemiologists,
psychologists, sociologists, economists and
anthropologists. Exploring challenges faced
by junior researchers was not my aim, but
these interviews revealed the epistemic
consequences of pressure to publish, which
span disciplines and continents.
My interviewees were concerned that
pressure to publish leads to prioritisation
of quantity over quality and neglect of
important scientific questions. The volume
of papers required to secure academic
promotion is an overwhelming concern
for junior faculty, my interviewees noted,
incentivising over-production of mundane
papers and neglect of complex topics and
questions. Some interviewees reported that
evaluations focused exclusively on quantity
had shaped their own scholarship. Criteria
for promotion had influenced scientific
priorities, and, nearing the end of their
careers, they wondered whether this
had reduced the relevance and impact
of their work.
Criteria for professional advancement
were also positioned as driving researchers
to identify the smallest publishable output
of their analyses (also called ‘salami slicing’)
rather than focus on research quality or
tackle big ideas in-depth. Many interviewees
felt that an abundance of mediocre papers
is ‘polluting the scientific air’ and that the
question ‘is this publishable?’ has supplanted
‘is this good science?’
Pressure to publish influences not
only the content of research, but also its
methods, as researchers preferentially
harvest low-hanging analytical fruit. As
senior researchers moved up the academic
ranks, some reported intentionally
avoiding projects perceived as risky
or challenging.
Nature Human Behaviour | VOL 3 | OCTOBER 2019 | 1005–1006 | www.nature.com/nathumbehav
One interviewee said, “As you get more
demand [for your skills] then you are more
selective; you think ‘this one is difficult’ and
you pick easy things that are publishable and
potentially will have a big impact. The other
things you leave.”
Pressure to publish was also linked to
poor-quality research and questionable
research practices. Interviewees shared
stories of early-career colleagues taking
methodological shortcuts and presenting
work in ways that maximise the chance
of publication rather than maximising
transparency. One epidemiologist explained
that postdocs are reluctant to highlight
limitations of research in print, as early
peer-review experiences suggest this
reduces the likelihood of acceptance. In
addition to downplaying limitations, several
interviewees noted that overstating the
significance of findings is rewarded in peer-
review, and this creates a desire for findings
to be somehow ‘striking’. This temptation
to bluster and overstate the certainty
and significance of findings has serious
repercussions for junior researchers if they
are caught out.
Reported interactions between
economists and epidemiologists
revealed how pressure to publish
inhibits interdisciplinary collaboration.
In economics, publications in ‘top five’
journals are valued far above publications
elsewhere and are a near-requirement
for tenure. Several economists noted
that publishing in high-impact medical
journals such as The Lancet is not helpful
to junior economists seeking promotion.
Consequently, incentive to collaborate
is minimal. From the epidemiological
side, where quantity counts, researchers
(i) were likely to describe collaborations
with economists as ‘risky’, (ii) were put off
by the length of time required to publish
papers and (iii) felt they could not justify
the time required to understand economic
terms and theories.
Pressure to publish the right amount in
the ‘right’ journals was reported to lessen
at late-career stages. Senior researchers
reported enjoying a sense of confidence,
security and intellectual freedom upon
reaching the professorial level, and
this supported their willingness to take
risks, think big and pursue collaborative
opportunities.
How do we support students and
postdoctoral researchers in developing
this same confidence? There is no simple
solution, and scientists beginning their
careers cannot realistically initiate change.
My interview data highlight some forces
within academia that increase the ‘squeeze’
on early-career researchers, but pressure
to publish shouldn’t be viewed as a
phenomenon isolated from trends toward
specialisation, maximal efficiency and
hyper-productivity in other professional
spaces. Employees in many sectors are
tracked and benchmarked to the hour, or
the minute. In this wider context it is not
surprising that academics are increasingly
expected to maximise and quantify
their output.
What seems clear from my research is
that this expectation negatively impacts
research quality in multiple ways and
that criteria for academic promotion
are exacerbating the problem, especially
where quantity is overtly incentivised.
Transitioning to measures of research
quality would encourage slower, more
impactful science, but such measures have
proved elusive thus far. In some economics
departments, candidates for promotion
submit only their five to ten best papers,
perhaps providing a useful model for
other disciplines. However, this is
workable only where criteria for
identifying ‘good’ papers are widely
agreed upon.
There is a certain irony here, given the
topic, that I—an early-career researcher
under pressure to publish—have
summarised these findings briefly within a
prestigious, branded journal rather than as
an in-depth analytical piece. I have made a
calculation here that brevity is offset by that
magic word, Nature, on my CV. Will this
‘salami slice’ signal to future employers that
1005
world view

I am a safe bet? That I can play the game? Edinburgh, UK. 2Public Health Published online: 10 October 2019
Time will tell. ❐ and Preventative Medicine, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0687-2
Monash University, Melbourne,
Taya A. Collyer1,2 Victoria, Australia. Competing interests
Global Health Policy Unit, University of Edinburgh,
1
e-mail: Taya.Collyer@ed.ac.uk The author declares no competing interests.

1006 Nature Human Behaviour | VOL 3 | OCTOBER 2019 | 1005–1006 | www.nature.com/nathumbehav