Over recent years we have been confronted with several cases of publishing the results of one experiment in separate publications. In some cases this was noted already by the reviewers. In other cases it was discovered by the readers of these papers, who became confused as the papers were very similar, controls being the same, only another fraction or a derivative of the previous published compound were in fact measured in parallel in the same experiment. Science is based on communication, scientific journals offer the platform on which scientists can share their work with others. The peer review system is in place to help to increase the quality of the publications, and to give feedback to the authors about the experimental work. Through keywords or browsing of journals, other scientists find the studies that they are interested in for their own research or teaching. This system can be quite efficient, provided that the scientists are interested to rapidly communicate a full set of their results to the scientific community, instead of, for whatever reason, publishing as many papers as possible. Cutting experiments into a number of papers creates more work for the reviewers who voluntarily make their contribution to serve the scientific community. It causes confusion for the readers since they cannot directly compare the results of the papers, as it is not always clear if the results are based on separate experiments or on a single experiment. Certainly it will hamper the reputation of the scientists who publish such papers and also reduces the impact of the work.
展开▼
