In 1969, the 'Inglefinger rule' was used to protect journals from potential dual publication. Now, authors wait long periods of time for their submissions to be processed (sometimes up to 6 months before it is even sent for review), and face longer waits for decisions before they can submit to another journal. Given that the journal publishing industry is extremely profitable and often relies on the voluntary work of others (authors, reviewers, +/- editors), should Inglefinger only be applied to non-profit publishers, and let those that earn a profit fight for our free work?
Thanks Nicholas for your interesting question. In my opinion, the 'Inglefinger rule' you mentioned, should be applied to the not-for-profit journals, while those that profit from our voluntary/free labour should fight for our continued support.
This is a very good point! Presently, all academics and journals take the Ingelfinder rule for granted, at least I have never seen an exception when it comes to journals. Journals, however, relaxed their rule when it comes to publishing the submitted work as a conference paper as long as it has been modified to some extent (which is purely subjective in most cases).
I don't think that we need to distinguish between for- and non-for profit journals. IMO, their status is irrelevant as long as they follow the academic publishing model to the best of their ability. They 'compete' for attracting the best submissions by creating a rigorous reputation by accepting high-quality works that are read and cited by the scientific community. There is, unfortunately, much pathology in the publishing industry, but academics always have a choice - produce good quality work, send it to the best journals and ignore the 'scientific junk' existing elsewhere.
One mans junk is another man's wealth (or something like that). There are endless bits of classic research that have been knocked back by 'top' journals, belittled by R2, etc., only to prove to be important and valued contributions to science when published elsewhere. For me, a high impact journal title brings some surface influence, but it is always the work that counts and how I can apply it to my own area. But with so many journals, predatory journals, pay walls / OA, and the increasing pressure for 'high impact' publications, I think it is entirely unreasonable to exert the second clause of 'and must not be submitted elsewhere' (I am not even sure it existed in the original). By all means get a declaration of no existing prior publication, but claiming you cannot submit elsewhere is accusing someone of attempting to publish twice before any offence has been committed. However, it's quite a convenient rule to enforce if you want 'first dibs' on a work, then keep the unpaid author on the hook for months, even years, and away from competing journals.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Articles