The terms author A and author B will be used to refer to the corresponding and non-corresponding authors, respectively, of the paper in question. The term Editor will be used for Editor A of our journal and Editor B of the other journal involved. The term Editorial Assistant will be used to refer to the person who is in charge of correspondence for our journal.
Author A presented a paper to a conference and submitted the paper to the conference proceedings. After the conference and before the papers were selected for consideration for the conference special issue, Author A submitted a paper to Editor A for review. The only comment Author A made regarding the status of the paper is ‘Finally, this paper is our original work and has not been submitted to any other journal for reviews.’ No mention was made that the paper was in a conference proceedings or is under consideration for possible inclusion in other journals.
Editor A decided to handle the review process himself and assigned reviewers to review the submission. Later, Author A sent a letter to the Editorial Assistant indicating that he/she was requesting that the submission be withdrawn from review. Author A’s note is shown below:
“I have a problem with this paper. I presented an earlier version of it at the xxxx conference in xxxx this xxxx. Each year the Editor B’s Journal xxxx runs a special edition based on xxx and our paper has been short listed from the papers presented at this year’s conference. So unfortunately I am going to have to withdraw it from your journal. However, this is part of an ongoing research project and hopefully we will have some more interesting results to submit to your journal within the next few months. Thank you for the time spent on this paper and apologies for any inconvenience caused.”
Editor A called Editor B and inquired about Author A’s paper. Editor B indicated that he was unaware that the paper was under review when he solicited it. Editor B stated that it was not his intent to solicit papers under review. Editor B indicated that he believed that Author A accepted his offer for special issue consideration after Author A sent a withdrawal letter to Editor A. Editor B agreed that Author A’s paper was under review at the time that the letter from Editor B was sent.
Editor A delayed taking action as he was to meet with the publisher in the near future and wanted to verify with them that his intended action—a ban for double submission—was suitable. On returning from meeting with the publishers, Editor A discovered that the paper had never been withdrawn from consideration and the review process was now complete (entire review process 28 days). The reviewer comments warranted rejection. Editor A sent a rejection letter to Authors A and B advising them that the paper was rejected, it was double submitted and comments were being forwarded as the paper was never actually withdrawn and that a submission ban was being placed on them for the journal for 5 years.
Author A and Author B attempted to correspond with Editor A. However, Editor A never received notification of these attempts as the Editorial Assistant did not bother to read Author A’s or B’s or any other emails for a long period of time. (The Editorial Assistant was replaced for performance reasons shortly afterwards.) Editor A received a telephone call from Author A, since Author A did not receive a reply. Editor A responded by email to Author A’s voice message advising that the decision taken was not open to discussion.
Author A contacted the publisher stating that if a retraction of the statement of double submission and journal ban is not made, he may take legal action.
Editor A’s position is that double submission occurred because Authors A and B demonstrated their intent to have their paper considered by both journals simultaneously by withdrawing their paper as soon as Editor B expressed an interest in it. If either Author A or Author B asked Editor A’s opinion on what to do, Editor A would have stated you are banned from the journal for double submission unless you allow the review process to complete. This opinion is not only held by Editor A, but is typical in the field. Editor A has many letters from authors who participated in a recent conference asking if their papers have been selected for a special issue, so they know whether they need to wait for a decision or should go ahead and submit their paper to an alternative outlet.
Editor A is willing to retract the use of the term double submission as he can see that the authors can reasonably argue that if the paper submitted to Editor B was given to Editor B after the rejection note was sent by Editor A one can make an interpretation that the paper was not physically under consideration at two places at once.
However, Editor A is not willing to retract the 5 year ban because Author A and Author B have abused the review process. They have wasted the time of two reviewers. Editor A typically waits for a year prior to asking reviewers who are not on the editorial board to consider another paper.
If a 5 year ban is retracted, Editor A fears that Authors A and B will continue to abuse the review process at his journal and that other authors will do the same. As the number of submissions has increased by almost 300% over the past 3 years, Editor A believes that anonymous reviewers warrant as much respect and consideration that can be offered.
In summary, Editor A feels that the intent to have a paper considered at two places simultaneously is unethical and is accurately described by the term double submission. Editor A is willing to retract the term double submission. Editor A will retract a 5 year submission ban, under extreme protest, if told that Author A and Author B have acted in an ethical manner.
The advice from the Forum was that ideally both editors should stand together and reject the paper but the Forum was told that editor B is unwilling to do this. The Forum noted that although the authors are responsible for wasting the time and editorial resources of the journal, authors are entitled to withdraw their papers. The proper course of action would have been for the authors to have rejected the offer from Journal B saying that their paper was under consideration elsewhere. However, the authors did request that their paper be withdrawn from Journal A but there seems to be some confusion regarding the withdrawal process (the editor informed the Forum that an administrator in Journal A’s office had been inefficient).
The Forum questioned whether or not the authors then believed the paper had been withdrawn and so they were free to submit it elsewhere. As it is unclear if or when the paper was actually withdrawn, the Forum agreed that a 5 year ban was too harsh. Also, COPE reiterated its views on sanctions. COPE believes that sanctions should be imposed only if misconduct has been proved after a proper formal process has taken place, involving an independent panel where the author is allowed to present his case. Otherwise sanctions can be seen to be unfair and could provoke litigation.
All agreed that the best sanction is to decline publication of the paper. If the editor feels he would like to take it further, then he could contact the author’s institution and request an investigation.
I informed the authors involved in the incident that this issue was taken to the COPE Forum and that the suggestion was that the recommended manner for dealing with situations in which there is a question of academic dishonesty was that the paper be rejected and that information regarding the incident be forwarded to the host university(s) so they can conduct an investigation and act as they see fit. I then indicated that we have adopted this recommended procedure to address future cases and as this case entered prior to the onset of this policy, the original submission ban is lifted and we will not be submitting the information to the universities.