It has become an established principle for editors to request authors to submit a manuscript only to one journal at a time. This causes an enormous amount of pressure on the authors’ shoulders, especially when they are emerging scholars. They may lose tenure, or important funding, since the publication process may take months (in the luckiest cases), if not years. When one wants to sell a product it is normal to advertise it on several platforms. Why should authors be stuck with one journal, especially if in the meantime the public/scholarly interest for a certain hot topic may fade away? Why the pressure is mainly on the authors’ shoulders, while it is the publishers’ job to do their best in finding the best research? Why should authors be threatened to be placed on “black lists” which would be subsequently shared among editors? Banning an author from submitting any article to a journal or to multiple journals in the field is clearly a disproportionate answer, and it is deeply unfair for authors. It can simply terminate their careers. I have heard about arguments that it is “unfair for peer-reviewers” because they might be disappointed and quit their voluntary work, leaving journals without cover. But this is a thin argument, because peer-reviewers get recognition for their work anyway. Indeed, it will increase the amount of proposals to journals, but in this case better methodologies regarding submission should be set up, not just placing the entire burden on the authors’ shoulders.
Perhaps this question has been asked already. Please direct me to similar questions and the answers that they received. Additionally, please suggest existent bibliography on the matter.
I am expecting (civilized) reactions from authors as well as from journal/book editors. Please do not include insults or abstain from writing if you do not have anything more to add to what other people will have already said. Thank you!
If you were a reviewer, would you like to know that your work on an article was for nothing because the author also submitted it elsewhere? See also this previous discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_this_remains_a_legal_statement_This_manuscript_has_not_been_simultaneously_submitted_for_publication_elsewhere
Hello Ionut Untea
That is an excellent point that Wolfgang R. Dick makes - I would not want my work to be in vain although I also completely understand the point you make that there is pressure from the point of view of the author(s), I have certainly experienced this - with rejections after what seemed a long time - and then have to reformat the article (or modify it or do both) in preparation for sending to another journal. Weighing both of these arguments, I still favour that the current situation is retained (that you can only submit to one journal, pending decision and not another at the same time) as there have been threads about the same article being accepted in multiple journals simultaneously which raises numerous complicated legal and ethical issues.
I disagree with the single-journal submission practice for much social science research. I have two reasons for this view. First of all, a paper worth reading is a paper worth publishing for the readers of any particular journal. It is the job of the editor to ensure that the content of the journal is both relevant and of sufficient quality. However, the fact that a paper may be published in one particular journal in no way reduces the value of the paper for the readers of another particular journal. It also does not significantly alter the economics of journal publishing; subscribers will subscribe on the basis of a long-term interest in the focus of the journal and single article purchasers will still purchase the articles they need. Second, through the review process for any specific journal, reviewers usually request changes that are specific to their view on the topic or align more accurately with the journal's character. Therefore, it would likely be the case that journals that apply rigorous review processes would render such multiple submissions as different publications in any case.
The caveat to all of this is that journal publishing remains a journal-directed process and not become driven by the researcher/writer. This does make self-funded publishing and the pay-for journals as well as open-access publishing a bit of a problem in above argument. But the fact remains that much social science research can yield multiple variations on a primary paper and each of these is valuable to a different set of readers who are likely to be reading different speciality journals.
I belie ve there are perspectives to this. And each discussant or respondent provides answers based on the vantage point to which he/she stands. For instance, as a reviewer, I would concur to Wolfgang's argument but on the other hand, if viewed from the writers perspective, many of the so called reviewers frustrate the efforts of the authors in question with timeline for acknowledging receipt of paper, reviewing and reverting back to the contributing author, the worse case scenario becomes a situation wherein a paper that should be published within a particular time where it is more current and relevant as it regards the sociocultural/political mileu is then abandoned only for such work to be published at a time when the information contained becomes stale lacking contemporary relevance.
Also, after delaying reply to some authors contribution for more than six months on accounts of they(reviewer/editors) working on it.. to now finally respond that such a paper is rejected and doesn't meet up with their so called publishing Ethic is what frustrates the authors and makes them have a plan B.
Wolfgang R. Dick, thanks for your comment. Although you raise a good point, I think there are overriding reasons not to accept this rule.
To start, if the reviewer's work is to be valued, perhaps the journal is the one that ought to demonstrate this by paying reviewers to do their job rather than relying on a volunteer basis. This would also potentially increase the quality of the review. We can all agree that some reviewers' work is awful and unprofessional.
Additionally, even if this would devalue the reviewers' work, the pressure scholars have these days to publish seems more relevant. Hurting reviewers' feelings does not seem to be an overriding concern compared to losing one's job.
Most importantly, the reason this rule exists does not seem to be related to a concern about the reviewers' feelings, but to publishing houses' financial goals. We want publishing houses to be financially healthy, but that does not imply that authors need to pay the cost.
Dear I. Untea
Your point of view is good. But but i think publisher should minimize their time taking for review time to publish an article.
Thanks
Recently, I was assigned a backend review of a researcher's list of publications. I was surprised to see an article appearing in two different journals. Even the researcher may not know that his/her paper appeared in another journal. I think it's more of an ethical issue.
The journal should fix a short time slot to review the artivles so that authors could have more options.
See also this new discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_we_submit_a_paper_in_two_journals_at_the_same_time
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism