It is not the question of splitting up the data. The fact is that when a researcher want s to disseminate the results of the study with various perspectives, keeping in mind the wide spread of the research implications for the benefit of the academic community, he can do it without distorting its originality. But at the same time he should also keep in mind that just for the sake of increasing the number of publication he should not merely repeat the papers. If different papers are prepared from same research work with different objectives included, for the wide spread of knowledge it should be welcomed.

Well i would also like to know the answer to this question...so please anyone with knowledge about this share with us..

It depends on your tool of research and research objectives as well

Getting such publication is in fact against the ethics of science and scientific publication. I admit that the number of publications is an important factor in determining one's contribution to the scientific society, however, increasing the number of publication in such manner is not acceptable. When some papers come for refereeing, i have noticed such strategies from the part of the authors and have either rejected it or have rejected with rider that can be accepted provided the authors add the required information.

While research ethics have to be observed, one study may have a bank of data that splits and synthesizes. However, different ideas (Objectives and hypotheses) can standalone and develop a paper. Of course not for the aim of looking for a maximum publication, but generously contributing to the body of knowledge.

Thanx Sunil Sir..i have few questions. please reflect your views on this.

if the investigator has collected large data on same sample, utilizing many variables and tools, can this data be divided in the form of more than 1 study as i think it is always possible to group data in various categories, like based on demographic data, provided research design doesn't demand any significant changes..so keeping research design and objectives similar, can't we take advantage of doing more than 1 research at the same time, thus saving time and money?

and please tell in little detail, how does this violate the ethical considerations of science? i mean, is it the specificity of the research hypothesis or nature of design or the independent-dependent variable relation that produces hurdles in interpreting more information from the given data?

Yes Lazarus sir, i also want to clear this thing that if one conducts, say 10 research tools of assessment in different sessions, and gets enormous data on same sample size, equally reliable and valid, satisfying the requirements of design and hypothesis, is it not possible that we split the data in different ways so as to get many hypotheses tested for significance and hence many objectives satisfied..this can be a good way to add large body of knowledge to scientific literature..

and according to your view, as Mr. Sunil has also said, how would ethics come into play in such way of publishing studies ?

@ all - Thanks all for your valuable comments. I feel that there is always a chance to do this. This is because, the number of parameters that you may take can fall as your advantage.

For example: Lets say that we have the following set of data's for a research on diabetes, like age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), waist-hip ratio (WHR) and blood sugar (both fasting and non fasting) . Now, can I say that these parameters are ENOUGH to publish an article on diabetes in a journal?

Moreover, if ONE MORE parameter, say, exercise tolerance is added to these, can I say that a comparative study can be made between all these parameters?

(Now please don't try your research using these SAME parameter's that I gave in this example. Such type was the talk of the town during the 1980's. Research on diabetes TODAY, has grown like a giant tree, climbing up to gene therapy and more. So its USELESS to try out this same idea that I gave..!)

Now coming back to the debate, I presume that this example would serve as a tool for further comments........,

I think this is typical mindset of students that are not guided properly... especially in state universities where in fact research should not be allowed. This in fact reduces the credibility of the Indian research... while splitting the results in different publication, you are giving limited information related to the topic. However, in case if the interest is very interesting and need very urgent publication, you can push the result as a communication, and publish the result in full as an article. Still I am against splitting the results into several publications. In my opinion most of the reputed publishers won't encourage such a strategy.

i wonder why people bring these 'state-national discriminations' in neutral discussions like these, which is open for all and specially covers the interest and curiosity of many others, specially when such questions need be resolved and put in enquiry..

this question does not require anyone's authority to get an allowance whether one can follow something or not, as directed by one's 'esteemed, LABELLED sense' of belonging to some reputed and 'STANDARDS following' institution, self-claimed as highly qualitative in their efforts thus believing that they are SUPERIOR AND ONLY DESERVING RESEARCHERS OF THIS COUNTRY...

woww...what a new form of caste system is there we see in INDIA initiated by people claiming themselves intellectual..i haven't seen any NON-INDIAN researcher here talking in a discriminative manner, though they deserve to assume the most that they are highly superior (which in fact they are)..i mean no NON-INDIAN researcher here ever says what problem he finds in INDIAN or any other EASTERN researchers, thus NOT projecting his/her own EXTREMELY SUPERIOR SENSE OF AUTHORITY over matters of common interest...i think this sense exists in some INDIANS only projected against INDIANS alone..

i put above a very straight querry, thus adding to the discussion my views and inputs, and it could be answered in a humble and neutral manner (as reflected in my comment above) thus not bringing any point of conflict here as was done..respect doesn't mean putting someone over one's head and allowing him/her to rule over one's mind...

thank you....

@ Sunil Varughese - Dear Sir, you are absolutely right in this regards. Yes, even I am against splitting the data. But, it's my (our) duty to spread awareness about the ethical ways of carrying out any research work. That's the sole reason I started this debate. Splitting the data is no harm. It only improves a researcher's knowledge about the work he/she has done. But, the main drawback (I feel) is that, the methodology, and discussion may get OVERLAPPED with the two articles that has been split. This MAY lead to a false judgement in a reviewer's point of view which would result in ultimately disqualifying either one of the articles sent (may be even both).

@ Tarun - Dear Sir, It's nice to see your healthy involvement in this topic. I appreciate all the valuable comments made by your good-self. Even I did not understand the true meaning of this comment 'especially in state universities where in fact research should not be allowed' posted by Mr. Sunil. May be, he is the best person to clear it. Well, that's not the topic of discussion here. And, I feel that this is not the place to drag a new topic (Indian versus non-Indian). It is an unimpeachable fact that the (so called) non-Indian researchers (with all due respect to them) do contribute richly to the society and in the field of research. And of course we Indian's are equal match to the other side of the world.

@ All - I kindly request all the contributors to strictly limit your comments in the context of this topic alone.

Dear Sai, I truly respect and agree to what you said, though it was not my intention to bring any 'indian - non-indian' conflict here..i talked about that as a reply to a previous comment, quoted "This in fact reduces the credibility of the Indian research" by Mr. Sunil Varughese..so as a matter of replying defensively to his opinion, i had to talk like that, as it was clear through that statement that it was written specifically to address the Indian students only who are discussing here, and no-one is dumb here enough not to infer like that through such a statement..he must have focussed on the topic of discussion here (he could have answered my initial questions to this discussion atleast in a neutral and POSITIVE manner), and not to throw such biased, prejudiced views about others, based on their nationality or university status..

so not taking this diversion any further i end my comment here..

hi Sai, you have to write separate article with every single varible which you have chosen in your framework .

Thanks all for your valuable comments..! Hope you all had a great X-Mas. I wish you all a happy, prosperous and successful new year. Take care. Stay in touch.

@ all:

I strongly agree that it is bad scientific practice to recycle parts of a wider research just for squeezing some extra publications out of it.

However, to get together a good paper (that has a chance of not being rejected by the journal referees) one should not just list every little thing one has done in research. One should only mention what is directly linked to the central point of the paper. The paper's central point and the scope of research done can/should be different things.

So, if you really think that your data has potential for another original, stand-alone paper - write it. If you just WISH you could get another paper out of all that data, but have no idea for an original, stand-alone point - leave it and do something else. And pad yourself on the back for having avoided being laughed at by serious scientists.

@ Nicolas:-

Thanks for your precise comment mate. I especially like this last sentence of yours 'pad yourself on the back for having avoided being laughed at by serious scientists.' Yeah, that's the ultimate thing one must do.

If innovative findings established from the same data we can split in many forms.

I think you can do that as long as one aspect of that research is covered. It must answer to the question of your publication. A research is a thorough study on a particular topic including many subcategories, so if you want to publish any of these categories, it shouldnt be a problem. As your whole thesis cannot be published due to publication limitations so I advice you to split your thesis/research and get it published in different journals.

@ all - I thank you all once again for all your valuable comments. I really appreciate your active participation and hope we all have been equally benefited from this post.

As per different objectives you can split your research work and publish them separately

@ Dipika Shah - Thanks a lot for your valuable comment Madam.

Sirs, the topic is really interesting. In many countries, all over the world (and not only in India...), is common practice to multiply the number of papers for many reasons, first of all, pragmatically, to grow up on the academic career steps. Please do not use the word "ethic" because in every university is really out of order. Every one of us, on his own scientific sector, is able to recognize who is making the paper multiplication or not. If somebody is correct whith himself, and not with the scientific community, probably will choose the better way to explain to the world the results obtained. I believe that the number of publication is not so important, also if practiced for the mentioned target. The only important thing is to make researches having various levels of positive results and contribute to the knowledge growth. In this case, each method is good, although slightly not properly correct ... An example for all: how many papers wrote Einstein to explain his theory?

Dear all, it's a well known fact that Sir Einstein wrote more than 300 papers but, the year 1905 is still considered as history. To split the data for maximum publications, one cannot take inspiration from the way Ramanujan-Hardy proved their number theorem of '1729' in 2 different ways. What they did on their part was purely ethical. Yes, Mr. Pietro is right in saying that 'ETHICS is out of order' in Universities all across the globe. I believe that this is because of the economical pressure every researcher has to face which pushes them (us) to pursue new methods which are subjected as unethical. The time factor also plays an unimpeachable role in this.

Let me share what I have learned (by myself);

"A research should never be carried out based on the result obtained. One must not strive hard, cook the data, multiply or split it in order to obtain the desired result. That is unethical. One must follow the path of ethics which is the only truth available, rest all are mere images."

I believe that research is a kind of recycle bin. It is something like remaking an old film once again for the current generation (in which the procedure is all the same but definitely the result would vary). But it should never be duplicated without proper credits been given to the original. That would be like copying or translating a questionnaire without the knowledge of its creator.

A few of you gentleman have commented in favor of splitting the data. I am not against your comments at all. One can split their data if they believe they can make a definite (individual) content out of it. I understand that those comments were your individual view points, still I would like to recollect the comment made by Mr.Nicolas Dierks (9 days ago) which says 'pad yourself on the back for having avoided being laughed at by serious scientists'.

I thank you all once again for your excellent (valuable) comments and your continued participation in this debate..!

Dear Mr. Say, thank you so much for your interesting cultural position.

Accordingly with Karl Popper, I believe that the scientist work probably is always a little bit unhetical (intended as you said), because our target is to falsify the results of previous discoveries, made till now by some colleague. Maybe we should forget the word "ethics" because improper: such a word concerns metaphysical questions that are really far from science. But if you prefer to deal with philosophical questions, then we also need to talk about aesthetics, where the pleasure of an individual or a community plays an important role. Every one of us has his own interpretation of the words ethics and aesthetics, and this, as you know is not scientific (which is our job)! I cannot forget that metaphysical questions imposed to Galileo Galilei to deny his scientific discoveries.

Worldwide we are living in a particular historical period, and it's difficult to play an holistic role on our work. Sure we are hyper specialists and we cannot consider factors out of our personal context. We also need to face local problems, of the academical system where we live, that usually adopt strange mechanisms of people consideration/evaluation, frequently incorrect, specially with researchers having good ideas and better results (because they disturb the mediocrity that like to evaluate by number of publications and not by the quality, obviously because of the mediocrity of evaluators – I am also an evaluator and make referees…). So if this is the game, why suffer violence by the mediocrity?

It is not the question of splitting up the data. The fact is that when a researcher want s to disseminate the results of the study with various perspectives, keeping in mind the wide spread of the research implications for the benefit of the academic community, he can do it without distorting its originality. But at the same time he should also keep in mind that just for the sake of increasing the number of publication he should not merely repeat the papers. If different papers are prepared from same research work with different objectives included, for the wide spread of knowledge it should be welcomed.

@ Dipika Shah - Rightly said Mam, also, I feel that it would become a double bonus if both gets published in the same journal.

@ Peter Matthews - Well said Sir. That is true, 'A single well-written original paper is far more valuable than ten papers that are repetitive', but at the same time potential opportunities are not to be missed in getting more than one in the pocket. This is indeed one of the best views shared here. Thanks..!

My dilemmas were solved through all of your straight forward replies. Long long ago (> 20yrs) I set back from presentations in the seminars and conferences due to uncertainities of the forums. But I started my manuscripts currently after getting connected to RG (Reserch Gate). Now I have boldly started publishing with certainities. My lab research of 25 years with field experiences helped me to think, observe and write differently. I understand that any research of any sort must be a key for utilizations at the level of common man. Research and Development must go hand in hand. This is not happening in my country(India). Applications in the field of agriculture and animal husbandry and biology is not helping in any way to our farmers.

@ Sunitha- I am glad that this debate solved your dilemma's Mam.

the reason is your question. Thanx.

@ Sofia - Thanks for your comment Madam. You have a valid point, but doing so, my argument is that it is against the ethics. There is no use in simply expanding one's resume without understanding what actually one is up to. We used to have a definition for Physiotherapist's here in India which is like this --> ''A doctor adds years to life but only a Physiotherapist adds LIFE TO YEARS''.

And simply multiplying the number of publications will be just like adding years to our lives and what exactly the need is LIFE TO YEARS..!

Spliting is welcome if another researcher enriches our work with his/her perspective (belonging to the same field or a differente one). Yes, at times we can improve our own discoveries or contributions, but it is difficult to know our own limitations. An evidence is your question and the several answers we dared to give. Some of the answers enriched your knowledge cencerning thi splitting issue and some others did not.

@ Sofia - Yes, it does throw light into the unexplored areas of the same study. But one must beware of the statistics. The 'split-up' data must be statistically significant and that will further push the researcher to formulate a new 'null hypothesis' and 'alternate hypothesis' coinciding with this 'split-up data' of their own study. This doesn't end here, the methodology part would be identical for both the studies and also the discussion part would overlap and many more such hurdles to cross.

Considering all these into account, if any researcher could overcome these factors, then can confidently send both the articles even to the same journal. If not, not even any 'new born' journal would accept that study.

@ Rafael - Dear Sir, even I am not against splitting the data. I too would love to have multiple publications under my belt. But as I have mentioned in the previous comment, there are certain factors to overcome before one thinks of splitting their data. There is a thin line between being 'smart' and being 'out-smart'. The one who could split up his/her own data and defend it confidently is really 'out-smart'. The one who fails to defend is definitely 'OUT'.

Yes, a lot of these discussions did enrich my knowledge. I hope it is the same for others too. But as mentioned by your good-self, sometimes 'it is difficult to know our own limitations'.

@ Sofia - I too wish so Madam.

Yeah use as much as u want wherever u want but u have to mention it from where u have taken .....there are various data sets like ires data set s and many r there ...pple generally take data from there.but if u have ur own thts g8...and it by mentioning it i ur ppr ...it adds some charming feature 2 ur writing

Says:-

Thanks for your valuable comment, Mr. Sarvesh Singh.

It is not a yes-or-no proposition. You should have a mentor or medical editor help you. For example, I recently helped one of my authors to be clear about what findings she could and could not report in the first of two articles she hopes to publish about one study, so that in the first paper she would not publish data she needs as a comparison group for the second publication. You can have your publications and ethics, too!

Says:-

Thanks for the idea Mr. Kevin

Dear Sai - Your conscious is clear. However, plan the publications with one intention in mind. The idea of avoiding duplication of data and information. You can split your research based on the sections within it..for example..

Review of Literature - highlight the history on the topic and the way forward.

Methodology - explain the philosophy, approach, tools which have been used in your research.

All in One - an article with your objectives, literature, methods, and data,

Additionally, if there are any practitioners journal you can provide your "reflections" as one more paper. This will greatly benefit the industry,

All the best..!

Shabbir

Says:-

Thank you so much for your concern Mr. Shabbir. I appreciate and value your suggestions.

Says:~

Does getting a 'Salami Publication' fall under this splitting up of data?

Any views/opinions in this regards are appreciated.