In my subfield, there is a highly regarded journal. I just finished a manuscript, which I thought would be suitable and ‘good enough’ for this journal. Coincidentally, another manuscript that I had originally submitted to the journal two years ago, after long periods of waiting, revision, etc. just got accepted by this journal.

Should I adapt my plans in any way? Does it seem like I am ‘journal-hogging’ or gaming the system if I submit a new paper literally days after the last one has been accepted?

  • It is normal for people to work on several projects side by side, and they may turn out to be finished at roughly the same time. – Davidmh Aug 14 at 9:24

With one paper every two years I don’t think you will be seen as gaming the system.

Go ahead and submit.

  • 21
    If the OP would produce ten top-quality papers a year and submit them there, why would this be seen as gaming the system? – ndpl Aug 12 at 15:06
  • 32
    You say "one paper every two years" does not look like gaming the system. This suggests that in your eyes there is a threshold at which this would be seen as gaming the system, regardless of the quality of the papers. At how many papers per year would you draw that threshold? – ndpl Aug 12 at 15:33
  • 6
    @Norbert You are welcome to post your own new question asking that. – Solar Mike Aug 12 at 15:34
  • 15
    Well it does not make sense to post the question, if it is not a question he has, but only arises from a (maybe unintentional) misleading formulation in the answer. – Kami Kaze Aug 13 at 9:50
  • 2
    I too do not understand this answer to the extent that it implies that submitting a high volume of papers to a single journal would be seen as gaming the system. Is the answer intending to imply this, or not? – Ceph Aug 13 at 20:27

If your submissions to the journal are being accepted, there is nothing wrong with submitting more papers to the journal: It means that your submissions are up to the standard of the journal, and you should feel free to submit further papers to that journal at the rate at which you can produce content of that quality.

It would be different if your submissions keep being rejected at that journal. In that case, you should reconsider whether your work is suitable for that venue, and if you submit to the journal at a too high rate, this might well annoy the editors.

As to which rate of submissions is acceptable (in case they are rejected), this is highly dependent on the field and journal, so it is hard to give a conclusive number. (In my field, one rejected a paper every two years even in a top journal wouldn't be seen as an issue by most people.)

  • 1
    Any evidence for the number you state? – Solar Mike Aug 12 at 15:35
  • 1
    In my opinion, this is more related to the researcher's profile. Consider, for example, that I have a rejected paper in journal A a year ago. In the meantime, I have published a couple of papers in the top journals of my field which are better than A. Would it be inappropriate to submit to A after one year? The key is to not be perceived as a delusional researcher who constantly tries to publish unimportant results in good journals. – CTNT Aug 12 at 15:51
  • 1
    @CTNT Sure, but if it were constantly unimportant results submitted to a top journal, this would result in regular rejections. The OP had a manuscript accepted, so in that case, there is no issue to submit further papers to that journal. – ndpl Aug 12 at 16:16
  • 2
    @SolarMike What could constitute reasonable evidence, to start with? (But one paper every two years would be ~20 papers in an academic life-time, and even less as a senior author, which is not that much.) – ndpl Aug 12 at 16:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.