i submitted my research article in wiley journal... and now after minor revision i got email from editor that there is a IEEE paper that proposed identical model that i proposed in mine paper. the editor asked me to explain the differences between two models and my paper can also be rejected if there is no additional contribution. the status of article is now showing major revision. my paper and IEEE paper utilize same base model but there are significant modification between them and have different application and objective. what will be the appropriate reply to the editor?
Can you inquire whether the IEEE paper was already published when you submitted your manuscript? If not, and if your paper does not look too close to the other one, then you may argue that your work is independent.
If it indeed quite close, then you may have a problem. But you might have a chance if you develop the paper further, so much that the necessary discussions on the connections between the two manuscripts will be reduced. If you, for example, develop a very good case study, then you have illustrated the usefulness of your framework, and it will be rather different from the other paper's.
Can you inquire whether the IEEE paper was already published when you submitted your manuscript? If not, and if your paper does not look too close to the other one, then you may argue that your work is independent.
If it indeed quite close, then you may have a problem. But you might have a chance if you develop the paper further, so much that the necessary discussions on the connections between the two manuscripts will be reduced. If you, for example, develop a very good case study, then you have illustrated the usefulness of your framework, and it will be rather different from the other paper's.
A good response from Michael. Your response to the editor should be a more detailed account of what you are telling us here i.e. that there is a 'base' similarity - but that there are many differences. Your reviewer may well be one of the authors of the other article - if it is a niche discipline with few available reviewers. The editor may only have had a chance to 'glimpse' your manuscript - and just seen the same model.
The alternative is sending it to the next journal al on your list - being aware that, if the pool of reviewers is limited, then the same scenario could play out.
I assume you were unaware of the competing research and the similarity is a coincidence. Correct? If you know the other researcher and were aware of each other’s work you probably need to have a conversation with him/her.
It is hard to recommend specific changes without more details about similarities and difference between the two studies. Can you supply additional information about the two studies?
Michael Patriksson yes it is already published in IEEE transactions in 2016. but there is significant difference between them. the objective of the paper is different and the case study is also different. the only similarity is the base model. both paper used same base model but the inputs and selection of load and generation profiles are different.
Rick Manner my case study objective is about benefits for both consumers and power utility. on the other side the IEEE paper objective is only have consumer perspective. my case study also utilize load management but IEEE paper didn't. the results are also totally different .
Dean Whitehead the paper is already passed 3 rounds of review why they didnt tell me similarity issue after 1st round , i already spend 6 months on this journal for revisions and i am really disappointing now.
We hope you are disappointed, rather than disappointing. :-)
I can tell you that some journals do not mind stalling their assessment of manuscripts. They know that us scientists need journals, and so some of them take us for granted,
But my advise is to try the best you can to highlight the new - to the point of actually developing the "new" side of your manuscript, at the expense of shortening the description of the history, especially if there are texts in the two papers - the published and the submitted one, I mean - such that there is even a greater difference between the new one and the old. Try, for example, to shift the focus in the literature survey to take into account more papers that are new, so as to distinguish the old survey more against the new one. Perhaps also other parts of the paper can be "modernized"?
You need to know the exact date when the IEEE paper was submitted . If the date is later than your submission you have a good chance to argue. based on discussions already sent to you. otherwise, take the following steps
1. go through the changes requested by reviewers and see if it really adds to your study.
2. Cite the published article in your article, you may even refer to its similarity with your model (provided the article WAS submitted before your first submission. and specially mention the shortcoming of that article and additional use of your article for general public.
3. Find another journal
4. Keep trying / keep pushing - never lose hope - All big authors historically were discredited for their great works - for centuries
5. Best of Luck - Do submit - don't leave it unpublished
update: after giving my justification on novelty to the editor, my paper is now accepted and published in early view
https://doi.org/10.1002/2050-7038.12177
When that IEEE paper was accepted (date1) and when did you submit your paper? (date2)? Also, how much is the similarity? (x%).
These 3 factors would define your response.
Thanks Harpreet Sharma for your success in publishing your article.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals