Dear journals: stop hoarding our papers
Why single-submission policies need to die (and what to do in the meantime)
Dritjon Gruda is an organizational behaviour researcher.Credit: Jon Gruda
During the COVID-19 pandemic, my colleagues and I submitted a paper to a premier journal in our field, examining the effects of the onset of the pandemic on individuals’ mental health, on the basis of their personality traits. This was a time-sensitive piece because people began to adapt as the pandemic accelerated. The paper languished for several months without even being sent out for peer review. Multiple e-mails to the journal yielded no progress. We had to withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere, losing valuable time. This could have been avoided had we been allowed to submit the manuscript elsewhere simultaneously.
Another time, we submitted a paper to a journal, and it was promptly reviewed by one reviewer. The editor, however, couldn’t find another and asked us to suggest any possible reviewers. We did, although with hesitation. Asking authors to recommend reviewers can compromise the objectivity and rigour of the peer-review process. There’s an obvious potential for bias because authors might suggest individuals who are more likely to provide favourable reviews. It took nine months and several proactive follow-ups for the editor to realize that our paper had been overlooked and was severely delayed. Eventually, after a revision request, our paper was published — almost a year later.
Imagine the absurdity of being able to apply for only one job at a time, waiting months for feedback before considering another opportunity. Such a scenario would undeniably hinder career progression. Yet, this exact practice persists in scientific publishing.
Falling behind
Scientific publishing has evolved to accommodate open access, preprints and even X (previously Twitter) threads. But the prohibition against simultaneously submitting a paper to several journals continues. This rule was conceived to protect the quality of the scientific record, with singular peer review acting as the key filter to ensure that only validated, high-quality research enters academia, one submission at a time. Yet, nowadays, this rule seems outdated and, at times, grossly unfair.
And sometimes a paper can undergo multiple rounds of review at one journal over the course of months or years, only to be rejected. Instead of accepting the existing system, why not change it?
The multiple-submission ban stems from the pre-digital era, in which copyrights were more difficult to enforce, journal editors sifted through physical manuscripts and peer reviewers were scarce. But today, digitization has automated much of the administrative work. Identifying relevant reviewers, no matter their location, is easier and more straightforward than before. The fear that multiple submissions would overwhelm the peer-review system lacks empirical evidence and is outweighed by the burden placed on researchers. This is particularly detrimental to early-career scientists and those from under-represented backgrounds, for whom the delay isn’t just frustrating; it’s a barrier to career advancement.
The ban also hampers the speed of scientific dissemination, a crucial factor in many fields such as climate science, health and medicine, in which timely knowledge sharing is paramount. The rapid proliferation of preprint articles during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the benefits of swift information sharing, even if those papers were not yet peer reviewed.
The time is ripe to reassess the single-submission policy.
But what can authors do?
While the scientific community awaits a much-needed overhaul of the single-submission policy, here are a few proactive suggestions to minimize the impact of protracted publishing timelines:
• Early communication: establish preliminary contact with journal editors to gauge interest in your paper before formal submission. Some editors offer constructive feedback and might even fast-track promising manuscripts.
• Journal tiering: have a well-researched list of target journals, tiered from high-impact to low-impact. If rejected from your top choice, you can quickly move on to the next journal on your list without wasting time on more research.
• Follow up: after submission, regularly check up with the journal. If a journal states that most reviews are completed in 90 days, nudge them shortly after that time. I have found this strategy to be the most useful. The key is to be respectful and professional in your communication throughout. Remember, respectful persistence. Don’t nag.
• Professional networks: use your professional connections to find out which journals offer quicker review times or are known for efficient communication, even if their impact factor is not top tier. This is one of the many reasons why attending conferences is so important.
• Preprint archives: use preprint servers relevant to your field to upload your manuscript. This serves as a public record of your work and allows others to see, cite and build on it while it’s undergoing peer review.
• Use social media: share your preprint on platforms such as ResearchGate or LinkedIn to gather informal feedback and attract early attention to your work.
• Parallel projects: working on several projects can help to maintain productivity levels while one paper is stuck in the submission pipeline.
• Advocate change: join or initiate discussions that challenge the current system. Use academic blogs, webinars or professional meetings to shed light on the inefficiencies and inequities perpetuated by the single-submission rule.
Throughout my career, I’ve grappled with the frustrations of the single-submission rule. Each delay was more than a professional hiccup; it touched a nerve. Over coffee chats, my peers and I have shared these challenges, yearning for a better system. Although I haven’t spearheaded a publishing revolution, I’m driven by the collective hope of reshaping a system that recognizes our work’s value and the urgency of our time. Until publishing norms catch up with the needs and pace of contemporary research, the strategies that I’ve outlined can help authors to navigate the existing landscape more effectively. Nevertheless, in an era in which timely publications can make a difference in job security and research funding, a crucial re-evaluation of the single-submission rule is long overdue.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03196-y
This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged.
This story originally appeared on: Nature - Author:Dritjon Gruda
