Dual submission

Journal A received a paper that was rejected without peer review as it was very poorly written. There was no clear evidence of original work, it seemed to be mainly a vehicle for advertising a piece of equipment/technique developed by the authors, and it was only marginally relevant to the journal’s area of interest. A month later, the first author of the paper submitted the same paper to Journal B, which happens to share an office with Journal A. The next month essentially the same paper originally submitted to Journal A was resubmitted. It was unchanged from the previous submission, but with a slightly different title. The editorial assistants of Journals A and B noted that, apart from some differences in the introduction, the two papers were identical. Journals A and B wrote to the authors, asking for a declaration that the paper had been submitted to that journal only. Both journals received a written declaration from the authors that this was the case. The editors of Journals A and B then wrote to the authors to ask for an explanation of this behaviour. The answer received was very poorly written, but essentially said that both submissions had been “interlaced. ”The authors begged the editors to continue the review process at both journals. Once the reviewers’ comments had been received they would revise the manuscripts and adapt them to the individual journal’s readership. The editors of Journals A and B planned to write to the first author’s institution. The other authors seem to be affiliated to something that sounds like a commercial enterprise. The editors suspect that the paper might have been submitted to other journals as well. There seems to be no way of checking this. As it happens, it is such an appalling paper it is unlikely to be accepted by any reputable journal.