Other Is it normal to submit a paper just after the acceptance of another?

AI Thread Summary
Submitting a second paper to the same journal shortly after the acceptance of a first paper is generally acceptable and can even be advantageous. Journal editors appreciate timely submissions from authors they recognize, as they often seek quality papers to fill their issues. Concerns about ethical dilemmas or policies regarding submission timing are typically unfounded unless explicitly stated in the journal's author guidelines. If such a policy exists, the journal will inform the author during the submission process. Relying on AI tools like ChatGPT for guidance can be misleading, and seeking advice from experienced peers is recommended for clarity. Ultimately, if a paper is rejected, it can be submitted elsewhere without any negative implications. Authors should not overthink the submission process, as it is a common practice in academic publishing.
patric44
Messages
308
Reaction score
40
Hello everyone,
I had a paper just got accepted for publication few days ago in a specific journal, and I feel comfortable in their publication system and the review process. Is it normal to submit another paper to the same journal (its on a different topic) just after the acceptance of the first paper?
or there are some ethical guidelines regarding that point.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you imagine would be the ethical dilemma posed by submitting two papers to the same journal close in time, or even with overlapping review processes?
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, patric44 and phinds
Orodruin said:
What do you imagine would be the ethical dilemma posed by submitting two papers to the same journal close in time, or even with overlapping review processes?
can't think of any to be honest. The thing is, I asked ChatGpt and it mentioned that some journal had a policy for the period of time between two successive submissions. I don't know if it is making this up, but it got me worried!. So there is no problem I suppose, right?
 
First of all, ChatGPT is not always a reliable source of information. Second, if a journal would have such a policy, it should be stated somewhere in the journal’s author guide. Third, if it were not stated in the author guide, the editor would surely simply inform you at submission and I don’t see where the harm in that would be.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Hornbein, PhDeezNutz, DeBangis21 and 1 other person
So the idea is to ask ChatGPT and if you like the advice, follow it. If you don't, ask around until you get advice you like and then follow that. Does this seem like a smart plan?
 
  • Haha
Likes Demystifier
Vanadium 50 said:
So the idea is to ask ChatGPT and if you like the advice, follow it. If you don't, ask around until you get advice you like and then follow that. Does this seem like a smart plan?
it is a genius plan, requires an IQ of 300+ :smile:
 
I am just trying to find the right thing to do, GhatGpt is not reliable for its word to be taken as an advise. that's why I asked. Why are you bothered?!
 
patric44 said:
GhatGpt is not reliable
Then why ask it?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Then why ask it?
To get a general overview of some resources it might give. when it suggests something that isn't entirely logical, you ask real humans who has experience. just simple as that.
 
  • #10
Taling ChatGPT seriously is not smart.
 
  • #11

Is it normal to submit a paper just after the acceptance of another?


Yes.

It is probably the best time to do so. The editors won't have time to forget who you are, or to forget that you did work good enough for them to accept in the past.

Journal editors at all but the very best regarded journals are constantly scrambling to find papers to publish that meet their standards so that they can get out each new issue. Often they get a fair number of submissions, but a lot of the submissions are awful, and if they have no other choice, they will hold their noses and publish them anyway. But that isn't their preference.

Submitting another up to snuff paper is something that most journal editors would see as a blessing and a lucky break. Usually, this would be appreciated.

If a journal has a policy of waiting before publishing another paper from the same author, they'll usually tell you that. And, often, the policy is to wait so as not to publish a paper from the same author in an immediately following volume of the journal. Even if it has such a policy, the journal may be happy to accept your paper but sit on it for a volume or two before publishing it, if you are O.K. with that. Or, the editor considering your submission may tell you that your paper looks good and that you should consider resubmitting it in another six months after their internal waiting period has expired.

The worst case scenario is that your submission is rejected and you submit it somewhere else. Nobody else needs to be told that you were rejected the first time and many fine papers in history were rejected multiple times before ultimately being accepted. Don't overthink it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top