An author submitted manuscript A to Journal 1 and to Journal 2 in consecutive months, both journals published by the same publisher. The author had previously submitted another manuscript to Journal 3 and informed the journal that the paper had been already published by another journal when the proofs were received. Journal 1 and Journal 2 have decided to withdraw the manuscript.
Journal 1 has received more papers from the same author (some of them as a coauthor): two papers have already been accepted (one of them published online, the other in production), and nine more manuscripts are waiting for peer review. The Editor of Journal 1 wrote to the author informing them that manuscript A was going to be withdrawn for simultaneous submission, and that they needed to receive a letter for every single article signed by all authors confirming that the manuscripts had not been published anywhere or submitted to any other journal.
The author apologised for their behaviour but did not offer any explanation. They asked for a template to send the letters, but later said the Journal 1 could publish the accepted articles or withdraw them. Journal 1 have just discovered that some months ago the same author submitted an article to Journal 3 (which is under peer-review) that has already been published by another journal. The Editor of Journal 1 has decided to withdraw all manuscripts submitted by this author, except the one that is already published online.
Questions for COPE Council
- Is this the right decision?
- Or what should the editor do regarding all the articles already submitted by this author to Journal A and not yet published yet?
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance.
The author has repeatedly violated well known norms not to submit manuscripts that have already been published or been simultaneously submitted to more than one journal. The author's actions are contrary to a number of ethical norms, such as the norm only to publish original research that has not been published elsewhere. Further, the author's behaviour has resulted in the misuse of valuable resources, such as editorial time, reviewers' time and administrative time. Does the editor think it is possible that the author might have misunderstood the ultimatum about the nine papers waiting for peer review? If so, the editor could send a final request with a reply deadline about the nine papers, just to be clear and to have a full paper trail.
The editor of Journal 1 was correct in requiring that all authors of the articles submitted to Journal 1 respond to a query confirming that all manuscripts that had been received were not published elsewhere or simultaneously submitted elsewhere. Such a requirement by the editor works to not harm innocent authors where the 'recidivist' author may not be first author or corresponding author, and the other authors may be unaware of any unethical behaviour with respect to a particular article.
COPE believes the editor of Journal 1 acted appropriately and would recommend that the editor/publisher contact the offending author's institution with the evidence so that the institution can determine whether or not to conduct an investigation into the author's unethical behaviour. This behaviour has to be tackled at source.
The journal could check their author guidelines to ensure they are clear regarding the requirement of no simultaneous submissions. The journal could also review its submission process, and consider requiring all authors to sign a declaration on authorship and approval of the final version and its submission to the target journal and also an online declaration or cover letter to include a statement about multiple submissions or prior publication.