Well, there is no ethical order. You can do either one of them. Usually, researchers publish preliminary data in conferences, then publish full datasets in journals. But this is not obligatory. But whatever you do, remember to:

- Try to present new data in both. For example, do not put all data in conference abstract, so that you leave nothing novel for manuscript.

- Paraphrase the abstracts to avoid self-plagiarism.

- If you published either one first, in the acnowledgement section of the other, you should mention that preliminary/full data of this study was presented/published in ......

Kind Regards

Well, there is no ethical order. You can do either one of them. Usually, researchers publish preliminary data in conferences, then publish full datasets in journals. But this is not obligatory. But whatever you do, remember to:

- Try to present new data in both. For example, do not put all data in conference abstract, so that you leave nothing novel for manuscript.

- Paraphrase the abstracts to avoid self-plagiarism.

- If you published either one first, in the acnowledgement section of the other, you should mention that preliminary/full data of this study was presented/published in ......

Kind Regards

Frankly it depends : the only basic rule is to avoid to publish the same paper twice (or more :-)). Cicero used to have a first draft for the presentation, and then have a second version for the publication : I think it is a good exemple of what to do, taking in account the suggestions of colleagues. But sometimes you have colleagues who want you to bring the final version the day of the presentation to publish quickly (especially colleagues of law, I have never seen that for Classics in France).

All the best,

1/1 ideal hocam

I guess that is it best to present data that is new for the audience and the present data from the past