ACS Publisher

Multiple, Duplicate, Concurrent Publication/Simultaneous Submission

Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication, and simultaneous submission refer to the practice of submitting or publishing the same research findings in multiple journals or submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously without proper disclosure. This practice can lead to several ethical issues, including the unnecessary consumption of peer review resources, the potential for conflicting publication records, and misleading perceptions of research productivity.

Definitions

  1. Multiple Submission: Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time without informing the editors.
  2. Duplicate Publication: Publishing the same or substantially similar research findings in more than one journal.
  3. Concurrent Publication: Publishing the same research findings in more than one journal around the same time without proper disclosure.
  4. Salami Slicing: Splitting data from a single study into multiple publications to artificially increase the number of publications.

Handling Multiple, Duplicate, and Concurrent Publication/Simultaneous Submission Complaints

Initial Assessment

Upon receiving a complaint regarding multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication, or simultaneous submission, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment to determine the nature and scope of the complaint. This involves:

  1. Reviewing the Complaint: Examining the details of the complaint to understand the specific type of issue being raised.
  2. Gathering Initial Information: Collecting preliminary information from the complainant, including any supporting documents, communications, and evidence that highlight the potential multiple submissions or publications.

The initial assessment helps to establish whether the complaint falls within the scope of publishing ethics and if it requires a formal investigation.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Throughout the process, confidentiality will be maintained to protect the identities of all parties involved. If the complainant wishes to remain anonymous, ISRR will respect this request while ensuring a fair and thorough investigation.

Notification and Response

If the initial assessment indicates that the complaint warrants further investigation, the following steps will be taken:

  1. Notification of Relevant Parties: The corresponding author of the publication in question will be informed about the complaint and requested to provide a response within a specified timeframe.
  2. Communication with All Authors: All listed authors will be notified of the complaint and asked to provide their perspectives and any relevant documentation regarding their submissions and publications.

The goal of this step is to gather comprehensive information from all parties involved to understand the circumstances surrounding the multiple, duplicate, or concurrent publication.

Formation of an Investigation Committee

To ensure an impartial and thorough investigation, a committee of experts with no conflicts of interest in the case will be formed. This committee will be responsible for reviewing all evidence and making a determination regarding the complaint.

Evidence Collection

The investigation committee will gather all relevant documents, communications, and data related to the complaint. This may involve:

  1. Cross-Referencing Submissions: Comparing the submitted manuscript with other known submissions or publications to identify potential overlaps or duplications.
  2. Using Submission Tracking Tools: Employing submission tracking tools to identify simultaneous submissions to multiple journals.
  3. Collecting Statements: Requesting statements from all authors describing their submission and publication history for the manuscript in question.
  4. Examining Correspondence: Reviewing email communications and other correspondence between authors and journal editors to understand the decision-making process regarding submissions and publications.

Decision-Making Process

The investigation committee will review all collected evidence and statements to determine the validity of the complaint. The decision-making process includes:

  1. Evaluation of Evidence: Assessing the credibility and weight of the evidence presented. This involves cross-referencing manuscripts, examining submission records, and reviewing correspondence to verify the submission and publication history.
  2. Consensus Building: Reaching a consensus on whether the complaint is substantiated or unsubstantiated. The committee will consider the extent of the overlap, the nature of the submissions, and the context of the publications.
  3. Recommendation of Actions: Recommending appropriate actions based on the findings, which may include corrections to the publication record, retractions, or other measures.

Communication of Findings

The findings of the investigation will be communicated to all relevant parties, including the complainant and the authors. This communication will include:

  1. Summary of Findings: Providing a detailed summary of the investigation's findings and the rationale for the decision.
  2. Recommended Actions: Describing any recommended actions and the steps that will be taken to implement them. This may include issuing corrections or retractions in the journal.
  3. Appeal Process: Informing the parties about the process for appealing the decision, if applicable.

Implementation of Actions

The recommended actions will be implemented promptly to address the complaint and prevent future occurrences. This may involve:

  1. Corrections to the Publication Record: Issuing corrections to the publication record in the journal if changes are warranted. This ensures that the publication history is accurate and transparent.
  2. Retractions: Retracting the paper if the multiple, duplicate, or concurrent publication is extensive and impacts the integrity of the research. This step is taken only in cases where the issue significantly affects the validity of the research findings.
  3. Policy Changes: Implementing changes to editorial policies or procedures to prevent similar issues in the future. This may include revising guidelines on simultaneous submissions and duplicate publications.
  4. Disciplinary Actions: Taking disciplinary actions against individuals found to have engaged in multiple, duplicate, or concurrent publication. This may include a ban on future submissions to the journal for a specified period.

Public Notification

In cases where the multiple, duplicate, or concurrent publication significantly affects the integrity of the research, a public notification may be issued. This notification will inform the academic community about the issue and the actions taken to address it. The notification will be published in an appropriate section of the journal to ensure transparency and accountability.

Institutional Notification

The institutions affiliated with the authors involved in the multiple, duplicate, or concurrent publication will be informed about the findings and actions taken. This step ensures that the institutions are aware of the issue and can take appropriate measures to address it within their own policies and procedures.

Documentation and Reporting

All steps of the investigation process will be thoroughly documented to ensure transparency and accountability. This documentation includes:

  1. Records of Communication: Keeping detailed records of all communications related to the complaint. This includes emails, letters, and meeting notes.
  2. Investigation Reports: Maintaining comprehensive reports of the investigation findings and decisions. These reports will be stored securely and may be referenced in future cases to ensure consistency in handling complaints.
  3. Annual Reporting: Including summaries of complaints and their resolutions in annual reports to the journal's editorial board. This helps to monitor trends in multiple, duplicate, and concurrent publication and evaluate the effectiveness of the journal's policies and procedures.

Prevention and Education

To prevent multiple, duplicate, and concurrent publication and promote ethical research practices, ISRR will implement educational initiatives for authors, reviewers, and editors. These initiatives may include:

  1. Workshops on Ethical Submissions: Conducting workshops and seminars on ethical submission practices. These workshops will provide guidance on how to avoid multiple, duplicate, and concurrent publication.
  2. Guidelines and Resources: Providing clear guidelines and resources on ethical submission practices on the journal's website. This includes detailed explanations of the types of multiple, duplicate, and concurrent publication and best practices for avoiding them.
  3. Submission Tracking Tools: Encouraging authors to use submission tracking tools to monitor their submissions and avoid simultaneous submissions to multiple journals.

Continuous Improvement

ISRR is committed to continuously improving its policies and procedures for handling complaints. Regular reviews of the guidelines and feedback from the academic community will be used to refine and enhance the process. This ensures that the journal maintains the highest standards of integrity and transparency in research and publication.

By adhering to these detailed guidelines for handling multiple, duplicate, and concurrent publication complaints, ISRR aims to uphold the integrity of the research and publication process, ensuring that the academic community can trust the validity of the research published in the journal.