Deadly Sins of Publishing: The Multiple Submission

Deadly Sins of Publishing: Submission of a Paper to Multiple Journals

This is a periodic column I plan to write that outlines some of the worst things you can do as a prospective author. These are things that might get you “watchlisted” if not blacklisted (no joke, I used to have a whiteboard up in my office with a list of names to watch for).  A journal’s reaction to them will vary – some will just tell you how you are wrong, others will chalk it up to a rookie mistake, and then there’s the ones that will simply not engage with you in the future. I plan to do another column of “Lesser sins and misdemeanors” that will outline what we more or less file under rookie mistakes and hope they aren’t repeated. But this column is for the ones that are more serious than that. 

And so here is the launch of my “Deadly Sins” category:

DEADLY SINS 101: THE MULTIPLE SUBMISSION

Other than more obvious sins such as plagiarism (diatribe about that planned for the future), this is one of the most serious, unethical issues that you can possibly perpetrate. Usually, it is done by early career researchers who simply don’t know how bad it is.

What do I mean by multiple submission of an article?

I mean you’ve taken a paper and submitted it to multiple journals at the same time.

Why would anyone do this?

It’s pretty simple really. The best way I’ve had it described is as a “scattergun approach” with the misguided argument that if you submit a paper to, say, six different journals, then you’ve instantly increased your chances of someone accepting it.

What’s wrong with this?

There is so much wrong with this that I don’t even know where to start. Mainly, you have wasted the time of multiple administrators, reviewers, and editors with absolutely no intention of publishing a paper with that journal. As I’ve said in previous posts, reviewers are not paid for their contribution; they do it as good citizenry and part of their wider academic duty. If you have six journals using a minimum of two reviewers each, you’ve wasted the time of at least twelve reviewers and six editors (and possibly six administrators).  Editors have to contend with a major balancing act to avoid what I’ve seen called reviewer fatigue. That’s when reviewers are used too extensively and  simply don’t have much time left in their days to do any more reviews. Simply put, they stop taking our calls (well, more accurately, our emails).  That means they aren’t available to other scholars who may submit their work because you have wasted their time. 

How are you supposed to know this?

It’s a general rule in academic publishing. But more than that, if you have submitted a paper, chances are, you have confirmed that this is the only active submission of this paper that you have.  In pretty much all submission systems there is a box you must tick that confirms this; or, alternatively, you are required to submit a cover letter that clearly states that the paper is not currently under consideration in any other journal. So basically, if you have submitted to six separate journals, then you have violated the submission policies of six separate journals, and they have every right to reject your paper (and most likely keep a close eye on anything else you submit in the future, because, hey, copyright rules).

What else is wrong with this?

What happens if all six papers agree to publish your paper and send it automatically to the publisher after the final acceptance? Most online portals do it like this. You obviously can’t publish the same paper in different journals, so you must then confess to the editor what you’ve done and ask that your paper not be published. This will leave five out of six very unhappy editors, and chances are that the editor of the journal you want it published in will reject the paper out of principle.

So in other words, the efforts to increase your paper’s likelihood of being published will do the exact opposite.

When CAN you submit a paper to another journal?

When it is released by the journal. This means once a decision has been made, whether that be a rejection or one of the “needs revisions” decisions. If you decide you wish to submit to another journal whilst it’s still in process, you need to write to the editor or administrator and request to withdraw your paper from consideration.

So basically, one journal at a time. This is also better for you because even if you get a rejection from Journal A, then your submission to Journal B will be built upon reviewers’ and editor’s comments to improve your paper. 

Have I ever seen cases of this?

Yes, unfortunately. It never really ends well. Usually a reviewer responds with a “decline” and a comment that s/he has JUST reviewed an identical paper for X journal.  This is when alarm bells start going off.

I have known a case in which the Editor sent a paper to Reviewer A and Reviewer B. Reviewer A returned the review, but Reviewer B got in touch. As it turns out, Reviewer B is also an editor of a journal that had just reached a decision on an identical article. This is how you get simultaneously rejected from two journals and a very stern email from both editors (assuming both editors are nice people and feel you simply aren’t aware that you can’t do this).  Keep in mind how relatively small the world of publishing is - whilst you think no one will ever find out, it’s actually high risk, especially if you are in a specialised field.

And that is the end of my first Deadly Sins post. I do hope it was helpful. Thanks for all your lovely, lovely emails and tweets so far! Please, keep them coming. Remember, if you have a question or an idea for something you think I could shed some light on, then by all means, get in touch either via email or Twitter.

Now for some pumpkin bread, methinks.

-theAdmin

Tweet

Why does Peer Review take so long? (Part II)

Continued from last week's post...

I’ve had some pretty good feedback from the last post, which leads me to want to continue it this week. The more I read other blogs and pieces on peer review, the more I realise that my interpretation of “taking a long time” and that of an author (especially one who is relatively new to publishing) are probably not the same thing. Why? Well, I’m increasingly convinced that there’s not much information out there about the nuts and bolts, as well as the nooks and crannies, of the reviewing process and the things that clog the gears. 

I would say, from my experience in the humanities and social sciences that you shouldn't start getting antsy until the 4-6 month point. And then rather than sending a demanding email, just send a polite email to the contact person (this should  be mentioned in the confirmation of submission email) and ask what the status is. Expect a vague answer. If it's taken this long, at least it means it's probably gone out for review - and that in itself is a victory.

So, again, here are some more reasons why it’s taking so long…

1.) Reviewers are Declining.

This one is pretty self-explanatory. Reviewing is a voluntary exercise; the system relies on the good will of academics. That being said, there are times when we have the unfortunate circumstance of having multiple “declines” for a single paper. I’ve seen double digit invitations go out before someone agrees. Does this mean your paper is inherently bad? Probably not. It probably just means that it’s either a busy time of year for academia as a whole or a busy time for your subject. For example, if you are a researcher in linguistics and you submit a paper two weeks before the International Linguistics Conference, then we are likely to get multiple declines as the subject specialists are preparing for the conference. Another issue could be that your abstract and title do a poor job in explaining your paper. Reviewers tend to have to decide whether to review on only a few things:

1.)    The letter/email from the editor

2.)    The reputation of the journal

3.)    The title of the paper

4.)    The abstract of the paper

5.)    The expected turnaround time

You have control of only two of these items, so make them count. Make sure your abstract and title truly reflect the content of your paper and are written well. You need to sell your paper and its significance. We can’t rewrite your abstract to make it more attractive to reviewers; you need to make it concise and full of impact. (I see a post on abstracts and titles in the near future). 

2.)  A Reviewer has Backed Out.

This, for me, is one of the more frustrating things about managing the review process. A reviewer agrees and is given X amount of time (let’s say four weeks) to complete the review. In week 3 (or 4 or 5), the reviewer emails and says that due to workload or time commitments, s/he can no longer complete the review. This means that we have to start again trying to find another reviewer and give that person the same four weeks once s/he has accepted. 

3.) A Reviewer has Asked for an Extension

This one isn’t so frustrating for us. This means that the reviewer knows that the review won’t be completed in the four weeks we gave, but instead of leaving us hanging, s/he has contacted us and asked for an extension on the due date. We update the system. New due date is issued. We may have to do this again – remember in my last post when I mentioned it pays for us to be flexible? This is where that comes in. It’s preferable to know it’s coming, is in the reviewer’s mind, but will be a bit late than to have to start again.

4.) A Reviewer has Left Us Hanging

This is quite possibly the most frustrating reason. In this scenario, a reviewer has accepted, but we never hear from her/him again. This happens quite a bit in book reviewing (another post for another day), but it also happens in manuscript reviewing. If we follow up repeatedly but get no response, we’ll start looking for another reviewer. But then we’ve just wasted the four weeks that we don’t suspect anything is amiss, then the follow-up time, and then we’re back to square one finding a replacement. 

5.) Another Review is Needed

Sometimes, when reviews are returned, they do not agree.  It’s the editor’s job to analyse the two reviews and make the final decision; but it’s not unusual to have one reviewer recommend minor revisions and another recommend rejection.  Unless the paper happens to be in the editor’s specific research area, then it will most likely be sent for another review. Add four more weeks and the risk of all of the above.

 

6.) There’s Something about Your Paper that Needed Amending/Fixing 

Generally, papers come in, and they adhere to our requirements and guidelines (yet another future post and one of my biggest pet peeves). However, there are occasions when something comes in, and I’ve had to do a bit of amending. Whilst this is never to the paper itself, it could be to file formatting or removing identifying details. For example, if you have dutifully taken your name off and taken out your self-citations but left a footnote or an acknowledgement thanking your department and funder, these will need to be checked. Also, it may turn out that when a reviewer finally gets to your paper on week 3, he/she can't access the file for whatever reason. These are normally fixed pretty quickly, but it still adds time.

7.) There is a problem. 

This doesn’t happen very often. By a problem, I mean that a reviewer suspects plagiarism or another ethical issue with the paper and has queried it with the editor. The editor must then investigate, possibly speak to the publisher, and correspond with the reviewer. The author will most likely be told that the paper is under review throughout the duration of these conversations, as papers stay in “Under Review” until a decision is made. 

 

SIDENOTE: Here's a plea for anyone and everyone who peer reviews – want to be a better citizen of the peer reviewing world? Then please, please, please communicate with the administrator or editor.

There are more reasons, which I'll continue to add as future posts, but I'm a bit preoccupied today as a close friend had a baby girl yesterday (hurrah!) and I was able to find a Mr Noisy onesie for my nephew who will be born in April (hurrah!).

As always, Tweet to @ECRPublishing , email, or leave a comment with any questions or ideas for future posts. I've gotten some great ones so far!

-theAdmin

  Tweet