When an author completed his or her article & submitting to journals for reviewing & publishing, s/he likely to encounter statements like “your article has not been and will not be submitted simultaneously to another journal” in journals’ websites.
Do you agree as an author to submit your article to multiple journals to increase the probability your article to be reviewed faster / published earlier? Or you prefer to submit your article to one journal first, when it has rejected your article then you submit to another journal?
Definitely the second option: We all know that this procedure has it's disadvantages and pitfalls and is not perfect but in my opinion it is the only way peer review works properly.
I accept that "one at a time" is how the world of academic publishing works. I think that for the journals, there are good business reasons for this requirement, regardless of what we might personally prefer.
Definitely the second option: We all know that this procedure has it's disadvantages and pitfalls and is not perfect but in my opinion it is the only way peer review works properly.
I think it is better to submit our article to one journal at a time. Because the review process done by a journal should not be in vain. But the journals should be more careful to provide the review reports and their decision on acceptance/rejection of the articles for publications within a reasonable time. Unnecessary delay in getting the review reports is one of the main reasons for thinking the possibility for multiple submissions. If the objective of multiple submissions is to get different review remarks, then there are other options like open review offered by ReasearchGate.
Submitting an article to multiple journals at the same time is being irresponsible no matter your reason.
Submitting an article to multiple journals at a time is not fair as per the guidelines or code of conduct.
I think, a totally restricted authors' rights to apply to several journals, or absolutely unrestricted authors' right to do so - both are heavily harming either the authors in the former case, or the journals in the latter case. The approach that I would be in favor of is to give authors partially restricted rights to apply, for instance, to up to three journals concurrently with the following restrictions:
- the author informs every selected journal that s/he is applying to another particular journal(s) at the same time
- the journal that accepted the article first cannot be denied / rejected by the author in favor of the competing journals that may agreed to accept the same article on the next day, week, month, or a year
- if any one (or two, or all three) journal(s) has confidentially rejected the article, the author should have a right to send it to another journal(s) (under the same rules and restrictions)
- having obtained the article's manuscripts, the journals are to be legally bound (by the law, or by the society corporate rules, or by the editorial board rules, etc.) to forbid actions against the author in s/he's collective rejection, or colluding by negotiations between the selected journals involved as to who gets the right to publish this article, and alike
This approach, supported by the four rules outlined above, would provide a sense of freedom for authors in having a relative independence from any particular journal, whereas journals would be motivated to make decisions in a timely manner, as they are competing now between themselves in attracting good articles and solid authors.
completely agree with your opinion, put yourself in place of editor what is your attitude towards such author, would you be willing to process future submission from such author ?
I totally agree about that. Waiting for only one journal decision is just a wasting time. The option of to send more than one journal should be possible and acceptable. Which of them starts to give the Doi number, others can be cancelled. Not only this option may provide to increase quality articles, but also can make journals faster & serious in a fair competition.
It is absolutely unprofessional to submit a paper to more than one journal contemporaneously.
No ifs or buts.
Of course.
No respectable journal would seriously consider a paper that has been submitted to another journal at the same time.
I usually submitted my publications one journal at the time for two main reasons. If the paper is not accepted, I usually get the reasons of its rejection and I can accordingly improve it to submit to another journal. Should my paper be accepted by two or three different journals I will have to decline its publication in the other journal(s) and this would be unfair (and a lack of respect) for the referees who had to spent time in reading and writing comments on my submitted paper.
Han - I fully agree with the policy that journals should restrict the author to submit his or her article to one journal at a time because it saves the time of both the authors and the reviewers. There would be a lot of confusion if the authors submitted the papers to more than one journal and if more than one journal accept the paper. This can lead to litigation and will badly effect the quality of reserarch. The disadvantage is that the acceptance rate of top journals is very low sometimes less than 10 % of total submissions. There is a lot of dejection when after a waiting period of 6 months or more, a paper is rejected by the reviewers and submitting the same paper to another journal is a cumbersome approach.
I agree for the simple reason of what happens if more than one journal accepts the article? Also, peer review can only work if it's submitted to one journal at a time.
- Badges
- Science topic