The tactic is more advantageous to authors, because they get more articles (which is used as a metric to evaluate scientific success) and I would argue it's les

The tactic is more advantageous to authors, because they get more articles (which is used as a metric to evaluate scientific success) and I would argue it's less risky. Say you split up your results up into 3 papers, your chance of one paper being rejected might be higher, however your chance of all papers being rejected is lower. In terms of more convenient for readers, you discount the mental load required in finding papers. That's in fact one of the biggest problems in many scientific fields at the moment. There are so many papers being published that it is very hard to keep up with the field. Reading the same amount of results also requires a much higher load, because if authors split up the results into 3 papers, the individual papers are not suddenly shorter, but in fact the overall page count is typically almost 3 times of a paper that would have put everything into a single paper.