The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Publishing short and long versions of an argument?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Question about publication 'ethics': Say a philosopher is working on a project and is drafting a long, journal article length paper on the subject. While working on that project, the opportunity arises to publish a much shorter commentary style paper version of the longer paper, which would leave out a lot of details but highlight one specific part of the longer project. Is it weird to have a 'short' and 'long' version of an argument be published, if there are things highlighted or discussed differently between the two?

Interesting question. I remember being in a similar position earlier in my career, and though my memory is hazy, I think that to play it safe, I just published one version of the argument (the short version). My understanding is that something sort of similar to what the OP describes ("salami-slicing") is considered unethical in the sciences, but it's not entirely clear from what the OP describes whether this is like that ("highlighting one specific part" of a larger argument may be quite different than the long-version presenting the rest of a much more involved argument). Then again, the OP also describes the short version as a "commentary … version of the longer paper" as well as a "short" and "long" version of a single argument, so I'm not sure.

What do readers think?

Posted in ,

7 responses to “Publishing short and long versions of an argument?”

  1. Laurence B. McCullough

    The OP also needs to consider the problem of duplication of publication (mis-classified as self-plagiarism; one cannot plagiarize one’s own work) if the longer paper contains verbatim text from the shorter, first-published paper. To prevent duplication of publication, the longer paper should cite the shorter paper and summarize it without using the same text. BTW: journal software may detect duplication of publication in the longer paper, leading to return of the paper without review and earning the author a reputation for engaging in an unacceptable practice.

    Reply
  2. Olle Blomberg

    I was in a similar situation described by the OP shortly after I finished my PhD and I published a commentary and a full-length paper with basically the same argument but applied to different philosophical accounts, published around the same time (the commentary: https://academic.oup.com/pq/article-abstract/65/258/94/2258804; and the full-length paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-015-0496-z). I do recall asking a more senior academic about whether this was problematic. This person thought it was not, and I think that they were correct. The worry described in the salami-slicing pdf that this might distort the literature seems to me really minimal unless one is trying to hide the fact that the basic idea is the same or unless it could count as duplication of publication. And I take it that the function of commentary and a full-length paper are usually quite distinct. So I am leaning “go ahead”, but the OP can play it safe by asking someone who knows the context and details of the case better first.

    Reply
  3. Daniel Weltman

    I think if it’s literal 100% overlap, i.e. the shorter version is basically an excerpt from the longer one (albeit with different wording, to avoid plagiarism) then this is not a good idea. Duplication like this wastes space.
    If the smaller piece makes some of the same points as the larger piece but also makes different points, and you can’t remove the overlap (because for instance they’re part of the setup in the smaller piece, or whatever) then that’s fine as lone as the later-published one cites the earlier published one (and I think ideally the earlier-published one should cite the manuscript of the other one, but I imagine people differ on this). Then it’s up to the reviewers to decide if the later-published one is indeed different enough to warrant publication, and if they think it is, I don’t see any issue.
    It’s asking too much to expect people to write papers that have nothing to do with each other – people have got to be able to develop ideas that are longer than a paper without having to write a whole book!

    Reply
  4. whatever

    The publication arms race would not be possible without at least some duplication of ideas (not necessarily cutting and pasting). Here’s a task for anyone interested: go and look at the abstracts of people publishing in top places 4-6 times a year. There is often quite a lot of overlap. One paper argues that A and B entail C. Another than A and B entail C, and that this has consequences for view V. Etc. Arms races are collective action problems, so you shouldn’t feel too bad if you join in.

    Reply
  5. citing is necessary

    If you decide to submit both for publication, make sure that each paper cite the other one and make clear the extent of overlap (e.g., see a more detailed argument in X that has discussions of A and B).
    Converting it to a modus tollens: if you don’t want to cite each other, then probably you should only publish one of them.
    Whether this could be a duplicate publication is unclear from OP’s description, so hopefully this test can help OP decide. (I have 3 publications that have about one page of content overlap and I’d be happy to show this to everyone.)

    Reply
  6. Reputational Risk

    See discussion of “redundant publications” here: https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2024/03/more-on-redundant-publications.html

    Reply
  7. 2 For 1

    Does the shorter paper make, as one of its central tenets, at least one point that the longer paper doesn’t? If so, then it’s fine to publish separately.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading