1

when writing a paper that you anticipate will become long, is it better to publish a small part of it and then publish the rest later, or will that (especially if the paper contains an original idea) give too much of a hint to potential rivals?

In other words, is it better to publish a mathematical paper in full, after completing your whole investigation, or in parts.

Is Ne
  • 2,668
  • My only comments would to be careful with a few things, for example later in your research you may come upon something that you think may have been better suited to earlier papers, or at worst something that makes a contradiction or changes the path that your on, good luck! – Quality Feb 28 '15 at 00:32
  • What are the chances of someone coming up with a paper on the same topic? If they are high, then maybe publishing in parts is best, since then you will at least be the one who initiated the idea. Otherwise, it might be best to do it all in one go, unless the orginisation of the paper very naturally admits a sequential format. – TorsionSquid Feb 28 '15 at 01:05
  • Any answer might depend on lots of things that would vary from case to case. But having two papers on your CV usually looks better than having one. – Michael Hardy Feb 28 '15 at 01:35

1 Answers1

1

Publishing many papers when it can be done in one paper is sometimes known as salami slicing or least publishable unit. 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.

Also,

The term [least publishable unit] is often used as a joking, ironic, or sometimes derogatory reference to the strategy of pursuing the greatest quantity of publications at the expense of their quality.

Some people find the practice of salami slicing or publishing in least publishable units unethical.

Community
  • 1
JRN
  • 6,566