Editorial pubs.acs.org/ac
Making the Editor’s Job Easier: Let Us Know about Prior Submissions and Related Manuscripts
A
And if you have read this far, I will let you know the following. For an author that has two articles rejected each year by Analytical Chemistry and has the average appeal success rate, they can expect to have one successful appeal each decade. Thus, while appeals can be successful, the successful appeal is not common. These points and others are covered in our author and ethical guidelines. In conclusion, be sure to let us know about your most recent related work and if the article has a prior history with the journal. Not only will your editors thank you, your manuscript will fare better during the review process.
s researchers, educators, and scientists, we all must confront matters that annoy us. As an editor, let me describe two. Perhaps if you know about these, you can avoid them. The first relates to the obligation for authors to discuss and cite their most recent related research in a submitted work. Why is this important? Consider that editors and reviewers are asked to examine manuscripts related to their field of research, but the specific topic may be outside of their exact area of specialization. Nonetheless, they are tasked with reading the paper, assessing its novelty, and determining whether the reported advance is significant enough to be published in Analytical Chemistry. It is reasonable to assume that the authors have cited and described the most recent and relevant literature, including their own. Why would they not? You might be surprised to learn that some authors fail to mention their most recent article(s), whether just published or only available on the Web, and even worse, papers that are under consideration at other journals. When determining originality and impact, reviewers and editors evaluate the current submission in the context of the authors’ most recent work, not their older work. Not citing recent papers and failing to describe how the current submission relates to that prior work raises warning flags that cannot be ignored. For example, the originality of the current work may appear less so when compared to the most recent studies. More importantly, if a report of related research is under consideration by another journal, not telling us about it goes against our ethical guidelines, and this omission is usually caught. When this happens, and it happens more often than most might expect, the authors are quick to list reasons that the work under consideration is different than their latest paper(s). While this can be true, subtle differences may not be viewed as significant enough to justify publishing the work in Analytical Chemistry. Even so, citing all related articles in your manuscript is strongly advised and avoids raising potential issues of concern. If a relevant paper is not available because it is submitted or in press, you must upload a copy as Supporting Information for review so that it can be considered when evaluating the current submission. The second annoyance is when authors resubmit a manuscript that the journal has already reviewed and rejected. If you disagree with the decision to reject, you can appeal the decision to the handling editor. However, ignoring the decision and resubmitting does not work out well, even though the article may have been improved. The Analytical Chemistry office has a long memory and will let the editor know if the work is too similar to a prior rejected article. Once we have rejected the work, either submit elsewhere or ask for permission to resubmit. We cannot overburden our reviewers (and editors) by reconsidering articles multiple times. Yes, while we strive to fairly evaluate all submissions, we can make mistakes and so some appeals are successful. However, not letting us know about the manuscript’s prior history is not acceptable. © XXXX American Chemical Society
■
Jonathan V. Sweedler AUTHOR INFORMATION
ORCID
Jonathan V. Sweedler: 0000-0003-3107-9922 Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b01206 Anal. Chem. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
