Why You Should not Submit Your Work to More than One Journal at a Time
Elizabeth Wager, Chair, COPE
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►
Peer-reviewed journals, such as this one, will not consider submissions that
are currently being considered by another journal. Most journals require
authors to state, in their covering letter, that their paper has not already
been published or been submitted to another journal (ICMJE, 2008).
There are two reasons why editors forbid multiple submissions. The main one
is because submitting a manuscript to more than one journal at the same time
is a waste of reviewers' time, and that time is precious to editors.
Finding suitably qualified reviewers is one of the hardest parts of an
editor's job. Persuading those reviewers to donate their time, nearly always
unpaid, to the journal by reviewing an article is even harder. Editors
therefore regard their reviewers as a valuable resource and are most
reluctant to waste their time by asking them to review an article that might
be withdrawn because it has been accepted by another journal.
Consider the effect that allowing multiple submissions might have on the
most prestigious journals. All authors would like their work to be published
in these high impact journals, and if they had nothing to lose, not even a
slight delay, they might routinely send all their manuscripts, however
unsuitable, to the top journals as well as to more realistic target journals
. The result would be that the major journals would be swamped with
submissions. Maybe you think the big journals could afford this, after all,
many of them are currently very profitable. But bear in mind that the cost
of peer reviews is ultimately borne by the scientific community. If a
journal wastes money by reviewing many unsuitable articles, then the total
cost of running the journal increases and the cost per published article
must also increase. The more inefficient the peer-review process, the higher
the cost to society. Even though journals do not usually pay their
reviewers, it costs time and therefore money to administer a submission,
select reviewers, and communicate with the authors. While the growth of
electronic publishing has reduced the costs of printing and distribution, it
has had minimal effect on the costs of running a journal office and
administering peer review. The Open Access electronic journals which charge
publication fees give a useful indication of these costs. For journals
operating in Western Europe and North America, the cost is around $1500 per
published article. This cost will rise if journals receive large numbers of
articles that they do not publish.
The second reason why editors discourage multiple submissions is because
they fear that some authors would let their work be published in more than
one journal. Such multiple publication is only permissible under certain,
specific circumstances, for example a journal might publish a translation of
an article it considered particularly relevant to its readers that would
otherwise be inaccessible because it was first published in another language
. However, such multiple publications must always be clearly referenced to
the first publication and acknowledge the original source. But if authors
got their paper accepted in more than one journal (through multiple
submissions) and wanted to break the publication conventions, they would not
tell the journals that more than one version had been accepted, therefore
the same research might be published several times as if it were original
material. The danger of such redundant publication was shown clearly by Tram
èr and colleagues who highlighted the effects of covert redundant
publication of studies of the anti-emetic ondansetron on a meta-analysis (
Tramèr et al., 1997). Unaware that three studies had been published several
times, they included the findings more than once, and showed how this
skewed the conclusions when the efficacy of the drug was expressed in terms
of the Number Needed to Treat (NNT). Such calculations are frequently used
as the basis for guidelines or for hospitals deciding which drugs to include
on their formulary, so this breach of publication ethics might ultimately
have harmed patients or wasted healthcare resources if it had not been
detected.
The peer review system relies on the good will of reviewers who perform
reviews without payment on the understanding that others will do the same
for them when they submit their own work to a journal. There is a finite
pool of suitably qualified researchers and the system is finely balanced.
Journal editors appreciate this and therefore do not want to upset the
balance and do not want to do anything that might encourage redundant
publication and cause publication bias.
For this reason the ICMJE states “Most biomedical journals will not
consider manuscripts that are simultaneously being considered by other
journals. Among the principal considerations that have led to this policy
are: 1) the potential for disagreement when two (or more) journals claim the
right to publish a manuscript that has been submitted simultaneously to
more than one; and 2) the possibility that two or more journals will
unknowingly and unnecessarily undertake the work of peer review and editing
of the same manuscript, and publish the same article. However, editors of
different journals may decide to simultaneously or jointly publish an
article if they believe that doing so would be in the best interest of the
public's health (ICMJE, 2008).”
Similarly, this journal requires that “The submission has not been
previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or
an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor) AJTCAM, 2004).”
Slow decisions can make it tempting to submit a paper to more than one
journal at a time, and some authors have even argued that this should be
allowed (Torgerson et al., 2005). But, if you are tempted, consider the
danger. especially if you work in a highly specialised field, there is a
reasonable chance that both journals will send your paper to the same
reviewer, who will then alert the editor to the fact that it has been
submitted to several journals. Editors take this so seriously that they may
ban authors from submitting to their journal if they have broken the rules.
In most cases, authors cannot plead ignorance of the conventions, because
this requirement is usually spelled out in the instructions to authors and
the journal may even require authors to sign a declaration that the
manuscript is not being considered elsewhere, either in the covering letter
or as part of an electronic submission process. In the case of redundant
publications, the editor may issue a notice of duplicate publication, naming
the authors concerned, and the journal that published the paper after it
had appeared elsewhere may retract it. The notice of retraction will appear
in the journal, and the editor may also inform the authors' institution. The
COPE flowchart on redundant publication recommends that editors should “
consider publishing [a] statement of redundant publication or retraction”
and also should “consider informing author's superior and/or person
responsible for research governance” at the authors' institution (COPE,
2008).
As the 17th century Swiss philosopher Madame de Staehl is supposed to have
said ‘search for the truth is the noblest occupation of man, its
publication is a duty’. All researchers should seek to publish their work
in peer-reviewed journals, but to publish it more than once (without a
special reason and clear cross-referencing) is not acceptable.
