I am currently working on a paper that will probably surpass the common limit of 8000 words (excluding the appendices). I tried to limit the words and deleted as much recurring details as possible but it won't make it. The methodology is just lengthy for a sound reason.
I wish it to be published but the length will only make the cut for a handful of journals for the topic. Now, the question is...
Is it wise to divide a paper into two when they technically share similar literature and set of data for the analysis?
For other details, the paper basically has three goals:
1. To find statistical evidences that the construct exist
(It is not covered by traditional validity indices. Can be considered as experimental.)
2. To see whether the construct affects a test's reliability
3. To see whether the construct affects a test's validity.
I am thinking of dividing it into two where the first paper covers the 1st goal and the second paper covers the 2nd and 3rd. But as far as I can see it, they will basically have similar literatures and theoretical framework. The discussion will also be more fluid if they are all merged in one paper.
But still, the length of the paper. So, do you think I should divide it, or just go for the journals that accepts longer manuscripts?
Will dividing the paper have advantage other than having more journals that may accept it? Will dividing it count as a form of duplicate publication?
Article Salami Slicing of Data Sets: What the Young Researcher Needs to Know
Thank you for the article Anton Vrdoljak
I am a newbie and it gave me a good insight of what to watch out for.
Thank you too, Daniela Sellmann-Risse
Will email them! :)
The suggestion of asking for an exception is wise. If it is refused, consider changing the title to end with “Part One” and add “Part Two“ to the second piece. Explain very briefly what you are doing about the parts in the introductions and write a suitable conclusion at the end of the second one. Again, you should get the editor to commit to publishing both parts or this will not be sensible to readers.
Edmund L. Erde That would be a great option too! Did I get it right that Part One shall cover what it should cover, then introduce the contents of Part 2 as a recommendation of on its (Part one's) conclusion?
This idea will best fit if they are on two different issues, right? Like a sequel?
I think, it is. For, it depends on the purpose, the aim, the reasons, the attempts and the deduction.
Yes or just end part one with an allusion to the upcoming part two. Either way, readers will follow if the introduction in part one makes plain what you are doing and the conclusion of part one promises what part two will show. Both the introduction and conclusion of part one should be very brief about part two. Part two’s introduction should very briefly allude to it being connected to part one. The conclusion of part two should end with comments tying the pair together. You must judge how to make the ties. You will violate the word limit if the ties are not tight and sparse.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication