Writing #2b--More thoughts on post-decision actions
This post is in response to a reader query (restated slightly from the original comment): How do you decide when (as an author) to just submit to a different journal instead of making major revisions, and is this is ok?
I took this to mean that the editor has asked for major revisions, rather than rejecting your work ("major revisions" would include decisions like "reject--invite resubmission").
The short is answer is, of course it's OK--you can do whatever you want with your work. There is nothing unethical about submitting to another journal. It would be considered courteous to inform the editor of this, although not necessary.
Further developing this response, however, the answer is actually complex because it kind of depends on what major revisions are being asked for.
Major revision may be requested on two broad bases, or a combination of the two. One might be called technical and the other might be called editorial. I'll address the latter first.
Editorial revisions might include presentation, organization, or suitability for the journal. Under "presentation", I would include issues such as use of grammar or other problems that affect readability, including presentation of figures. I once saw a reviewer comment along the lines of, "This paper reads as if two groups of the authors disagree with each other." If I remember, two reviewers of that paper made similar comments. I'd include that problem under presentation.
Organization can include not clearly distinguishing methods from results, for example. I discussed this in "Writing #2a".
Addressing suitability for the journal is another type of editorial revision. Generally, papers are rejected out of hand, often without review, if they are considered unsuitable. But occasionally, the topic may have captured the reviewers' and editor's attention, and they would like to include the paper in the journal. At the journal I edit for, the problem is almost always length of the paper (i.e., it's too long) or inclusion of too much important material in the supplementary materials. You can largely avoid this type of revision by paying attention to the journal's mission and format.
Technical revisions would include those that are related to the scientific content of the material. In general, I would recommend against going to another journal after major revisions are requested. I addressed this in "Writing #2a", but it's worth repeating. If you are asked for revisions, even "major", that means the reviewers and editor saw something in the paper that is worth publishing. Sometimes it really is something as simple as organization. Your paper may have been organized in such a way as to partially obscure the significance of your results. In addition, there is always some gold in the reviews that will point you toward better ways of presenting your material, whether you send the paper back to that journal or submit to another one. So, to me, turning around and submitting the exact same paper to another journal would mean throwing away an opportunity to improve your paper.
The only really difficult circumstance I can think of that may result in your sending the paper elsewhere is if the reviewers requested more or different data that you are unable to acquire because of funding or other limitations. I've gotten comments like this a couple of times in my career. In both cases, I was able to finesse the request by mentioning in the response letter that I can't collect the additional data, and why, and by putting a line in the paper saying, in effect, more data are needed and what kind, how these data might change the conclusions, and that future work is needed.
I took this to mean that the editor has asked for major revisions, rather than rejecting your work ("major revisions" would include decisions like "reject--invite resubmission").
The short is answer is, of course it's OK--you can do whatever you want with your work. There is nothing unethical about submitting to another journal. It would be considered courteous to inform the editor of this, although not necessary.
Further developing this response, however, the answer is actually complex because it kind of depends on what major revisions are being asked for.
Major revision may be requested on two broad bases, or a combination of the two. One might be called technical and the other might be called editorial. I'll address the latter first.
Editorial revisions might include presentation, organization, or suitability for the journal. Under "presentation", I would include issues such as use of grammar or other problems that affect readability, including presentation of figures. I once saw a reviewer comment along the lines of, "This paper reads as if two groups of the authors disagree with each other." If I remember, two reviewers of that paper made similar comments. I'd include that problem under presentation.
Organization can include not clearly distinguishing methods from results, for example. I discussed this in "Writing #2a".
Addressing suitability for the journal is another type of editorial revision. Generally, papers are rejected out of hand, often without review, if they are considered unsuitable. But occasionally, the topic may have captured the reviewers' and editor's attention, and they would like to include the paper in the journal. At the journal I edit for, the problem is almost always length of the paper (i.e., it's too long) or inclusion of too much important material in the supplementary materials. You can largely avoid this type of revision by paying attention to the journal's mission and format.
Technical revisions would include those that are related to the scientific content of the material. In general, I would recommend against going to another journal after major revisions are requested. I addressed this in "Writing #2a", but it's worth repeating. If you are asked for revisions, even "major", that means the reviewers and editor saw something in the paper that is worth publishing. Sometimes it really is something as simple as organization. Your paper may have been organized in such a way as to partially obscure the significance of your results. In addition, there is always some gold in the reviews that will point you toward better ways of presenting your material, whether you send the paper back to that journal or submit to another one. So, to me, turning around and submitting the exact same paper to another journal would mean throwing away an opportunity to improve your paper.
The only really difficult circumstance I can think of that may result in your sending the paper elsewhere is if the reviewers requested more or different data that you are unable to acquire because of funding or other limitations. I've gotten comments like this a couple of times in my career. In both cases, I was able to finesse the request by mentioning in the response letter that I can't collect the additional data, and why, and by putting a line in the paper saying, in effect, more data are needed and what kind, how these data might change the conclusions, and that future work is needed.
I had this question too! Thanks for the info!
ReplyDelete