In article <93147.090501FORSDYKE at QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <FORSDYKE at QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
writes:
>Papers would be devalued if multiple submission
>were widely practiced. My point is that the risk/benefit balance for cheating
>in the modern competitive world of research (i.e. simultaneous submission to
>multiple journals) seems to be very low. Given human nature, it probably occurs
>and I am surprised that Editors are not barking about it.
I have heard of such a case and only post now because I have
finally remembered its source. At a conference I attended a while ago,
I met the editor of a journal who had recently discovered such a double
submission by the mechanism which Don described in his first posting on
this topic (a referee received the same paper from two different
journals). This turned out to be quite serious for the author: He
barred the author from ever publishing again in his journal and
convinced the editors of all the other journals whose editorial boards
he sat on to do the same; the editor of the other journal involved
did the same. In all, this particular author is now barred from roughly
thirty publications in his field, including practically all of the most
prestigious ones. (Incidentally, this incident did not happen in the
natural sciences so don't try to guess who was involved. You almost
certainly don't know any of them.)
On the other hand, I know one fellow who merely received a slap on
the wrist for actually publishing the same article in two different
journals. (That's right: He not only submitted to two journals but
actually allowed both to publish his research article.) I guess that
these two anecdotes taken together show that double submissions might
be a gamble, but with respectable winning odds: Even if caught, you may
not be appropriately punished.
Marc R. Roussel
mroussel at alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
