I have a different spin on this. Conferences are designed to disseminate study findings. Different people attend different conferences - so might see the results presented at one - but not the others. A few decades ago, I remember submitting three abstracts to a high profile conference in Belfast. This was in the 'hope' that one of them would be accepted. Bar the titles - they were essentially the same presentation. Fortunately, or not, all three abstracts were accepted. I had to change up my presentations as best I could for the benefit of those that attended all three!!

I have a different spin on this. Conferences are designed to disseminate study findings. Different people attend different conferences - so might see the results presented at one - but not the others. A few decades ago, I remember submitting three abstracts to a high profile conference in Belfast. This was in the 'hope' that one of them would be accepted. Bar the titles - they were essentially the same presentation. Fortunately, or not, all three abstracts were accepted. I had to change up my presentations as best I could for the benefit of those that attended all three!!

Bryan Schønecker

All 4 of them are published in conferences and are available with IEEE Xplore. 3 were published with 15-20 days margin in 2015, 1 in 2018. I received a manuscript to review it for a good journal and found this all. Nothing is different in the manuscript everything appears to be the same as is published before in 4 conferences, even plagiarism is 60%. Also, in another paper, the same technique is available to solve the same research question by a different author. I do not want to make it public for the sake of the reputation of stakeholders involved but just want to add to my future reference.

Dean Whitehead

Sir, I have 2 quick questions:

1- we can submit a paper with the same results, techniques and methodology but different write-up to as many conferences as available and allow the publisher to publish even if accepted before??

2- after having multiple conference publications on the same topic with the same outcomes, we may change the write-up and submit this manuscript to any journal without any additional work added?

Muhammed - to question 1 - this is fine as far as I am concerned. Question 2 is fine to me, as well, as long as the 'write-up' is substantial.

From Wikipedia: "In academia, salami slicing refers to the practice of creating several short publications out of material that could have, perhaps more validly, been published as a single article in a journal or review." (See also least publishable unit)

From Wilipedia: "In academic publishing, the least publishable unit (LPU), also smallest publishable unit (SPU), minimum publishable unit (MPU), loot, or publon, is the smallest measurable quantum of publication, 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. The term is often used as a joking, ironic, or derogatory reference to the strategy of artificially inflating quantity of publications."

My considered opinion is that if there is any doubt then academic salami slicing should be avoided. See how hard it is for you to collate the salami papers to cite them! If the same sentence appears in 3 papers, you have to cite all 3! The narrow window of time and the heavy overlap of contents is wrong.

That said, I can see where it would be useful to present DIFFERENT aspects of some research to DIFFERENT conference audiences OVER THREE MONTHS. At most, the Introductions would be similar.

Hi all - my intention was not to salami-slice. It was, shall I say a more 'innocent' time a few decades ago. I doubt that I could get away with it today - and wouldn't attempt it. It was the leading public health conference, at the time, that I had applied for unsuccessfully previously - so I looked to a more 'cunning' strategy. It did backfire a bit - but I had a few comments from a few delegates who had been brave enough to attend two or all three - who suggested that they were different enough to hold their attention.

It is not possible to plagiarize yourself. Websters: "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source". And "to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source".

A research paper, once published, is usually set in stone, cannot be changed except in exceptional circumstances. However, research papers have limited audiences, and reaching larger audiences requires additional work. Constraints on republishing are not ethical constraints, they are more likely to be contractual constraints designed to benefit the publisher, not the science, nor the author.

No artist paints the same picture, sings the same song, or tells the same story twice. We grow, sometimes for the better, perhaps sometimes not.

Presenting the same scientific results at two or more different conferences, with different conference objectives, requires a reframing of ideas from the research perspective to the conference perspective. In addition, as time passes the researcher sees the research in a different light and may have added valuable knowledge that was not available at the original publication. The more important the research, the more important perspectives it has. Research results seen by fewer people has less impact, often irrespective of it's scientific value.

Self-Plagiarism may help in increasing the number of publications. But will not be considered as quality work. Also, many reputed publishers will not allow this. This kind of publications will not boost your points/recognition but may reduce.

This affects to the quality of the research work.