An article submitted to Journal A was flagged by anti-plagiarism software, showing a 17% similarity index, which was within the acceptable threshold of 20%. However, during the peer review process, one reviewer identified that a significant portion (approximately 80%) of the article had been previously published in conference proceedings. The authors claimed that they had submitted their work to the conference under the condition that it would not be published in the proceedings. They provided emails to support their claim but were unaware that the article had indeed been published by the conference organizers. The authors sought to have the article retracted from the conference proceedings but received no response.
Key Issues
1. Duplicate Submission: The primary issue is whether the authors knowingly submitted their work to both the conference and the journal, constituting duplicate submission.
2. Lack of Communication: The authors did not receive confirmation from the conference organizers regarding their request for non-publication.
3. Journal Policy: The journal needs to determine if the article can be considered for publication given the existing conference publication.
Analysis
1. Responsibility and Communication:
- Authors’ Responsibility: It is the authors' responsibility to ensure that their work is not simultaneously submitted or published in multiple venues without proper acknowledgment and permissions. The authors should have obtained explicit confirmation from the conference organizers before proceeding.
- Conference Organizers’ Responsibility: The conference organizers should have communicated clearly with the authors regarding the status of their submission and publication.
- Journal’s Responsibility: The journal must verify the situation to ensure that its policies on original publication are not violated.
2. Possible Solutions:
- Clarification from Conference: The journal should request the authors to provide any response they may have received from the conference organizers. If there is no response, the journal should directly contact the conference organizers to clarify the publication status.
- Resubmission with Modifications: If the research is deemed valuable and the authors demonstrate naivety rather than intentional misconduct, the journal could consider allowing the authors to resubmit the paper with substantial modifications, such as paraphrasing and adding new, original content. This would ensure the work is sufficiently differentiated from the conference publication.
- Citation and Acknowledgment: The authors should cite the conference proceedings appropriately, making it clear that the journal submission is an extended version of their preliminary findings.
3. Ethical Considerations:
- Transparency: Authors must be transparent about the history of their submissions and publications.
- Fair Practice: The journal must uphold fair publication practices and avoid publishing work that may already be accessible through another medium.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Given the circumstances, it appears the authors may not have intentionally engaged in duplicate submission but rather were victims of a communication lapse. The following steps are recommended:
1. Immediate Actions:
- The journal should seek clarification from the conference organizers.
- The authors should be asked to provide any additional correspondence or evidence regarding their request for non-publication.
2. Potential Outcomes:
- If the Conference Confirms Publication: The journal should not proceed with the publication of the article as it stands. The authors should be invited to resubmit a significantly revised version with clear references to the original conference paper.
- If the Conference Retracts the Paper: The journal can then proceed with the peer review and potential publication of the article, ensuring all relevant permissions and acknowledgments are in place.
3. Policy Clarification:
- The journal should review its policies to ensure clear guidelines are provided to authors regarding duplicate submissions and the handling of previously published work.
This approach maintains the integrity of the journal’s publication standards while recognizing the complexities and potential miscommunications in the academic publishing process.