Publishing & peer review
Policies for handling simultaneous submissions and coordinating peer review across journals ethically.
Responsible research dissemination requires clear, enforceable policies that deter simultaneous submissions while enabling rapid, fair, and transparent peer review coordination among journals, editors, and authors.
Published by
Edward Baker
July 29, 2025 - 3 min Read
In modern scholarly publishing, the temptation to submit a manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously can arise from the pressure to publish quickly, secure funding, or gain broader exposure. Editors and publishers increasingly confront this issue, recognizing that lax handling may undermine trust in the peer review process and distort scholarly record. A robust policy framework should start with explicit prohibitions against parallel submissions and clear consequences for violations, including manuscript withdrawal and formal notices to affected editors. At the same time, journals must offer authors a transparent route to clarify status, request withdrawal, or rescind an offer when a competing decision arises. Clarity reduces misunderstandings and protects all parties involved.
Beyond simply prohibiting simultaneous submissions, ethical coordination requires standardized procedures for communication and decision-making among journals. A central registry or consortium-driven platform can help editors verify submission status quickly while preserving author privacy. When a manuscript is under review at one venue, a second journal can request confidential status updates or time-bound pauses rather than duplicative review cycles. Importantly, authors should be able to retract or withdraw from an interim review without penalty, provided they inform editors promptly and comply with any applicable policy terms. The aim is to balance efficiency with integrity, not to trap researchers in rigid rules.
Transparent status updates and mutual respect among editors support ethical review.
A well-defined policy should specify the conditions under which simultaneous submissions are deemed unacceptable, along with reasonable exceptions for certain types of manuscripts. For example, articles that are advertised as conference abstracts or preprints with clear do-not-subscribe-to-publication clauses should not automatically trigger penalties if a different venue accepts subsequent versions. Transparent timelines help authors plan, while editors can coordinate around conflicts in reviewers and availability. Policies should also address potential ambiguities, such as preliminary reports, short communications, or data notes, where multiple dissemination routes might be legitimate if each venue clearly states its role and audience.
Additionally, journals ought to coordinate on reviewer invitations to prevent redundancy and reviewer fatigue. When a manuscript is under consideration at one journal, other editors can share non-sensitive status updates—such as whether the manuscript is under active review or awaiting revision—without disclosing reviewer identities or confidential data. Such coordination reduces duplicated effort and preserves the reliability of the peer review process. Clear reciprocal expectations between editors and authors help maintain trust, especially when decisions arrive at dramatically different times across venues.
Practical guidelines empower researchers to act ethically and knowingly.
Authors bear responsibility to disclose prior submissions and to provide accurate status information. A concise disclosure section within the submission file can prompt authors to declare any ongoing reviews or earlier decisions, along with links to public preprint records if applicable. When authors fail to disclose, editors gain grounds to reevaluate the manuscript and potentially withdraw offers in cases where conflicts of interest or policy breaches are evident. Policies should also outline the process for correcting inadvertent nondisclosures, including warnings, temporary holds, or formal investigations when necessary. The overarching goal is to prevent strategic misrepresentation rather than punish honest mistakes.
Journals must invest in clear, accessible guidance for authors, reviewers, and editorial staff. This includes sample statements for cover letters, standardized forms for reporting submission status, and simple checklists to verify compliance before manuscripts proceed to review. Training for editors and reviewers can emphasize the ethical boundaries of simultaneous submissions, the importance of protecting reviewer anonymity, and the escalation path if a breach is suspected. By normalizing these practices, the publishing ecosystem becomes more resilient to miscommunication and more welcoming to researchers who seek transparent, fair treatment.
Harmonized rules reduce duplication and support timely dissemination.
An effective policy also considers the broader ecosystem, including preprint servers, repositories, and cross-journal collaborations. Preprint publication is increasingly common; therefore, journals should specify how such versions interact with formal submission and review. Some venues may permit submission with clear notice that content has appeared in a repository, while others may require withdrawal upon acceptance elsewhere. This clarity prevents disputes over precedence and helps establish a predictable path from manuscript to published article. Institutions, funders, and publishers benefit from harmonized expectations that reduce ambiguity across disciplines and geographies.
A fair policy accommodates exceptions for legitimate scholarly practice, such as multi-language submissions or regional collaborations. For example, researchers may need to submit translations of a manuscript to different journals for regional audiences or ethical reviews. In these cases, authors should declare the nature of the submission, the intended audience, and any overlapping content. Editors can then assess whether overlapping material warrants a joint or coordinated review, a shared revision plan, or separate timelines that minimize waiting times for authors and readers alike.
Ongoing evaluation ensures resilient, trusted scholarly communication.
The operational side of coordination benefits from technological tools that track manuscript status across participating journals. A secure, privacy-preserving workflow can notify editors about an ongoing review without exposing reviewer identities or confidential deliberations. Automated reminders can help maintain submission timelines and prompt author updates when decisions are pending. By leveraging interoperability standards, publishers can streamline communications while safeguarding intellectual property and reviewer confidentiality. Technological solutions should be designed with input from researchers to avoid burdening them with onerous steps or duplicative administrative tasks.
Additionally, ethics committees and editorial boards should periodically audit compliance with simultaneous submission policies. Regular audits help detect patterns of noncompliance, encourage corrective actions, and reinforce a culture of accountability. Findings from audits can inform policy refinement, such as tightening definitions of “simultaneous submission” or clarifying what constitutes a legitimate exception. When breaches occur, proportionate responses—ranging from warnings to manuscript withdrawal or sanctions—must be clearly described, consistently enforced, and publicly communicated to preserve community trust.
In practice, a well-functioning system hinges on cooperation among editors, publishers, and authors. Editors should work with their journal’s policies to determine when to withdraw a manuscript and how to communicate the rationale to authors and colleagues. Authors benefit from knowing what constitutes a breach and how to rectify it, including the option to retract a submission with minimal penalty when done promptly. Reviewers gain by understanding their role within a coordinated process and the importance of avoiding redundant invitations. A culture of openness supports not only ethical behavior but the efficient advancement of knowledge.
Ultimately, ethical coordination of peer review across journals requires continuous dialogue, shared standards, and transparent consequences for violations. Stakeholders should agree on a common lexicon, standardized reporting formats, and mutually beneficial pathways for updating policies as publishing practices evolve. The aim is to protect the integrity of the scholarly record while ensuring researchers can pursue high-quality work without unnecessary barriers. By fostering collaboration rather than competition in the review process, journals contribute to a more reliable, inclusive, and robust scientific enterprise.
