On the Thorny Issue of Single Submission

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

When reading the abstract I thought this would be an interesting and worthwhile contribution to the literature. Sadly, upon finishing this I was let down and I learned nothing. My sense is that anyone who is a regular reader of Publications would also learn nothing, because no information or even opinions are presented here that would not be familiar to someone who has gone through the higher education system and who has the lived experience of submitting something for publication. 

The author does an able job of noting the various issues at play and draws upon current research to do so. The author correctly noted that preprints likely solve all the problems that people complain about when they complain about the single-submission "rule" - after that, I thought we would be treated to some discussion about preprints but instead he just continued on. I agree with the author that removal/abolition of the single-submission rule would be chaos, but it seems to me that most people who have thought in detail about it have arrived at the same conclusion - which is why calls for changing the rule/policy have gone nowhere. In short, this should be a blog post, it could contribute to the professional discussion but does not merit placement in Publications. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am hesitant to voice this critique because so much academic writing is dreary and boring. There is no doubt that this scholar is an expert in written English. However, I am going to critique the style. I found the author's prose in this article to be excessively lively and florid. There are times when ornate prose is called for but the level of decoration and mastery of the English language and vocabulary in this article actually impeded the reading and possibly the understanding. Many sentences were much longer than necessary and quite a bit of filler words could be cut. I estimate that about 500 - 750 words could easily be removed (1/2 a printed page) and the same message conveyed. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest adding some of the reflections reported in the text bellow in the abstract.

It is a very interesting well-written and very solidly grounded essay. Undoubdtly, it is worth publishing it. 

Some additional analytic reflections on peer-review processes, quality, and validation of research published in journals, the role of peer-review procedures as the key filter of science dissemination, and the roles of academic tribes in publishing seem to be necessary. 

I think that peer review is overestimated. For example, "Peer-review ensures that research is rigorously scrutinised by experts, with a view 37 to maintaining the quality of published research"

More than a reflection on the single-submission process, it seems an apology for peer review.

In some expressions, it seems to be necessary to hedge some statements. For example, "It is incontrovertible that scholarly publishing"

Grammar revision, especially punctuation usage, is required.

I think that too much grey literature was cited in this essay. In some cases, more peer-reviewed papers could have beeen cited

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is well written, with an acceptable academic essay style. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The opinion piece tackles the issue of multiple submissions to scholarly journals. While the article starts by asserting that there is a "clamour for the abolition of the single submission rule in scientific publishing", I am uncertain about the extent to which this claim is widespread. Nonetheless, the author presents compelling arguments in favour of retaining the requirement for single submission.

Author Response

- Thank you for your favorable review.

- Three (3) of the references cited herein; published last year (2023), and at least one (1) each in the last five (5) years and decade, all deal with the abolition of the single submission rule and/or multiple submissions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 On the thorny issue of single-submission 2

 

 

The writing is overly effusive and described. Too much hyperbole and exclamatory statements that only add words, not meaning or information.

 

The authors seem to blame slow reviewers on the exclusivity submission rule. I don’t think that is supported or proven.

 

The authors don’t seem to understand that ‘double publication’ is an ethical violation, not a goal to be sought out.

Some opinions [1,2] suggest that multiple or simultaneous submissions; which can 100 lead to double or multiple publications in two or more journals, can help authors garner 101 diverse feedbacks from multiple sources and achieve maximum dissemination of their 102 work. This

 

This is a bold statement to make with support only by one reference. I do not believe the time of submissions directly correlates to patient outcomes.

It has also been argued that sequential submissions delay the dissem-107 ination of clinical research results, with attendant harmful effects on the health of patients 108 [13].

 

Again, here, the author shows his/her naïveté about publishing. The goal is not to stake journals against one another.

Furthermore, it is tenable to posit that at the core of this non-/simultaneous submis-118 sion debate, in scientific publishing, are time lapse and management [1,3,5]. Authors are 119 required to wait for a decision from one journal before submitting to another and cannot 120 stake one journal against another.

 

Again, there is no double publishing! This should not be published, lest other nubiles believe it is OK to do.

Simplistically, supposing that an author, who is amenable to multiple-submission 129 and journal-tiering, simultaneously submits an article to two or three relevant but differ-130 ent journals that complete reviews in 90 days and at the end of the peer-review process, 131 two of the journals accept to publish the manuscript, does the author double-publish or 132 withdraw the manuscript?

 

This is not proper language for academia “fudging the issue”….

So, without overstating or fudging 134 the issue, assuming t

 

This statement makes no sense and is wholly unsupported. 

In addition, there are knotty ethical issues around copyright 142 ownership, ex-Open Access, amongst others [25,26,30], with simultaneous submissions.

 

Overall, I don't believe that the point of the article is supported by the commentary which appears to be more of a stream-of-consciousness (yet entertaining) rambling. I would not advocate for publication in its current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language as noted above, while showing the author's excellent command of English and vocabulary, in many places is inappropriate for an academic publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the author for including additional information and references that substantiate the claim regarding the size and intensity of the call for removal/abolition of the single-submission rule. The paper is strengthened for that work. 

I leave the decision to publish this sort of opinion article up to the Editors of Publications. I continue to believe it would be better suited for a different venue.   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Editors of course have final say here, but I continue to believe that the "insight to length" ratio of this manuscript is too low. The author is clearly a gifted writer. I wish that he would apply his talents toward conveying the same information in a more economical style. Using software such as Grammarly and the grammar editor on Microsoft Word (set to maximum strength, see https://www.howtogeek.com/412883/how-to-improve-microsoft-words-grammar-checker/ ) would greatly help by improving readability and cutting superfluous words.