Nature issued an article: It's time to let go of 'multiple submissions of one manuscript”

"Please stop hoarding our papers", the Nature column publishes contributions from scholars.

The article calls on journals to reconsider the rationality of the "single submission rule", and "multiple submissions for one manuscript"It is time for the ban to be lifted.

The contributor to this article is Dritjon Gruda, Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at Maynooth University. He is the associate editor of several journals such as Personality and Individual Differences, and is also the editor-in-chief of many journals. Reviewer for top academic journals.

The reason why Dritjon Gruda submitted the manuscript is because, like many scientific researchers, he has experienced the long wait after submitting the manuscript more than once:

Sometimes The paper was sent out, but it took more than half a year to receive feedback. In the end, I was told that the paper was rejected. I waited in vain and missed the best time to publish.

"If we could have submitted the paper elsewhere at the same time, we could have avoided this situation," he said.

In the article, he shared his own experience, explained why he hopes to cancel the single submission rule, and finally made some suggestions for authors.

After this article was published, it immediately resonated with netizens:

As someone who is preparing to submit and is still choosing a journal to submit to, I completely agree.

# However, some netizens do not agree with canceling the single submission rule, mainly because it will increase the difficulty of peer review.

The pain is real, the solution is naive.

Some netizens have also considered this issue and said that they are developing review aids:

In the past year and a half, I have been working hard to assist academic publishing and review from a software perspective. I think there's a lot of room for improvement here, and we can greatly simplify the work of editors and reviewers through improved tools to reduce review times.

Some netizens also said that they basically do not submit to journals:

I am engaged in computer science research and publish papers regularly, mainly at selected conferences. Rather than a journal, because that's how most work in computer science is done. Write an article, find the nearest relevant conference deadline, submit the article, and get a reply 2-3 months later.

#Why does the single submission rule need to be changed?

The "multiple submissions" ban originated in the pre-digital era, when copyright maintenance was extremely difficult. Journal editors needed to screen physical manuscripts, and the number of peer reviewers was also limited. limited.

At that time, this regulation was to ensure the quality of scientific research, in which the only peer review was used as a key screening mechanism, in which "checking" could ensure that only verified, high-quality research could enter the academic community. .

Now, Dritjon Gruda believes that this ban seems outdated and sometimes even extremely unfair:

Digitalization has automated many jobs. No matter where the reviewer is, they can review the manuscript in a timely manner.

Concerns that multiple submissions will overwhelm the peer review system lack evidence and are outweighed by the burden on researchers. This is particularly detrimental to junior scientists and those with underrepresented research backgrounds in academia. For them, this delay is not only frustrating, but also a major problem that hinders their career development.

He also went on to add that this ban also hinders the rapid dissemination of scientific information, especially in fields such as climate science and health medicine, where timely knowledge sharing is very important.

Dritjon Gruda also shared his experience.

Previously, his colleagues worked together to write a paper exploring mental health, and then submitted the paper to top journals in related fields. But the paper was shelved for several months after it was issued, and was not even sent for peer review.

They sent multiple emails to the journal with no progress, and finally had to withdraw and resubmit elsewhere. As a result, the best opportunity to publish the paper is missed.

Another time, although a reviewer quickly reviewed the paper, the journal editor said that he could not find the next reviewer and asked Dritjon Gruda if he could recommend one. Considering that the author's recommendation of reviewers might affect the objectivity and rigor of the peer review process, Dritjon Gruda hesitated at the time, but finally recommended one.

After nine months of long waiting, and Dritjon Gruda taking the initiative to follow up several times during this period, the editor realized that their paper had been ignored.

Finally, after a revision, their paper was finally published, but "it was almost a year later."

“You can only apply for one at a time, and you have to wait several months to get feedback, and the wait is in vain.” Dritjon Gruda said that this would bring him frustration.

Throughout my career, every time a paper was delayed, it was not just a minor professional problem for me, it hit a sore spot. During breaks and chats, I would also discuss with my colleagues, eager to have a better rule.

Although scientific publishing has developed to accommodate open access, preprints, and even social platforms such as X (Twitter) and Threads. But the ban on submitting a manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously continues.

Suggestions to authors

Before solving the problems caused by the single submission rule, Dritjon Gruda gave some suggestions to authors, hoping to minimize the impact of delayed publication of papers.

Early Communication

Before formally submitting a paper, you can establish preliminary contact with the journal editor to understand whether they are interested in the paper. Some editors will provide constructive feedback and may quickly process papers they think have promise.

Journal Grading

Prepare a well-explored list of target journals, graded from high to low impact. If your first choice journal is rejected, you can quickly move to the next journal on the list and avoid wasting time on journal selection.

Continuous follow-up

After submission, communicate with the journal regularly. If a journal states that most reviews will be completed within 90 days, they can be pushed shortly after that.

Dritjon Gruda believes that this strategy is the most useful. The key is to be respectful throughout the communication process and not nag.

Professional Relationships

Leverage professional relationships to learn which journals review papers more quickly or communicate effectively, even if they are not top journals. This is one of the important reasons why you should attend meetings.

Preprint Archive

Upload your manuscript using a preprint server relevant to your field as a public record of this work. Allows the paper to be viewed and cited by others while it is under peer review.

Use social media

Share preprints on platforms such as ResearchGate or LinkedIn to attract early attention to your work and to gather some informal feedback .

Parallel Projects

When a paper is blocked in the submission process, other projects can be carried out simultaneously.

Driving Change

Participate in or initiate discussions on current rules. Use academic blogs, webinars, or professional conferences to discuss the inefficiencies and unfairness caused by a single submission rule.

The above is the detailed content of Nature issued an article: It's time to let go of 'multiple submissions of one manuscript”. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!