Writing articles based on the "Least Publishable Unit" I have heard the term "Least Publishable Unit" used to describe the amount of scientific information that holds enough merit for a publication. From my understanding, there are two sides to publishing with this term in mind:

1) The positive aspect of this concept is the fact that the article remains focused on the research question and tends to be concise.

2) The downside, at least for me, is this notion of only obtaining enough data simply to produce publications. 

Has anyone else heard of this term used when discussing publications? If so, is my interpretation of it correct?
To summarise what's in some of the comments... this term is usually used in a cynical, sardonic or derogatory fashion, to describe the practise of "salami-slicing" research into lots of papers, each of which has the minimum amount of content necessary to get published. The aim of this approach is to maximise the number of publications that can be obtained from a given piece of research.

Some believe that this approach is encouraged by hiring practises in universities that depend upon the number of publications a researcher has, rather than their quality.