10

I am a Research Scholar in Mathematics in my initial days. I wrote an article and submitted it to a good journal recently. I am confused with the following inquiry of mine:

If my article gets accepted then there is no worry. But suppose my article gets rejected and in the meantime when my article was in peer-review, someone else does the same research as mine and submits his/her research to some lower ranked journal which unfortunately gets accepted.

My query is what will happen to my article. Since an article similar to mine has been accepted, if I try to resubmit it to another journal after the rejection, will the Editors consider my article as duplicate even if I started the work before.

Will the Editor of the journal allow me to resubmit my paper if I show them all the details that I was the one who started this work first but since it got rejected from a higher ranked journal, I am submitting it to his/her journal now.

Or

Will my article be considered duplicate of the one which got published recently in a lower ranked journal?

I am confused.What shall I do in this kind of situation. I guess these sort of things happen to every researcher. How does one get to deal with this?

Another query of mine which is related to the same problem

Even if I put my article on the arXiv and if someone does the same research as mine, is it possible that he/she may say that he/she does not read arXiv articles and hence his/her work is not plagiarized.

Someone please help me out. I am puzzled on how to deal with these two issues.

7
  • It's not productive to worry about it. Apr 30, 2020 at 10:21
  • @AnonymousPhysicist; sorry I dont get your point
    – Charlotte
    Apr 30, 2020 at 10:21
  • 1
    Also why the downvotes??
    – Charlotte
    Apr 30, 2020 at 10:22
  • There is no action you can take that is worth the effort. Spend your time improving your research instead. Apr 30, 2020 at 10:22
  • 1
    @AnonymousPhysicist; so posting to arXiv as suggested is not a worthy option according to youu
    – Charlotte
    Apr 30, 2020 at 10:30

1 Answer 1

8

Sadly, priority is established by whoever is first to publish, not by when the work has been conducted (since this is normally not really traceable). However, depending on the discipline, there are normally multiple ways to handle this problem:

  • Posting a preprint: probably the easiest way to show that your work has existed before it appears in a peer-reviewed journal is to send a preprint to a preprint server, such as arXiv. How "useful" this is for establishing priority depends a bit on the discipline, but at least your work is out there and you have a fairly solid argument to convince people that you at least did not copy from whoever published before you (if it comes to that).
  • Multiple discoveries: in many disciplines, it's simply not true that once a paper on a specific idea has been published no further similar work can be accepted. Frankly, in an experimental discipline, as long as there are not a handful of similar experiments with results pointing in a similar direction a theory isn't really accepted anyway, so the second, third, or even tenth study may still provide sufficient value to be considered even at strong journals. I think in math things are different (but if you are in math you would probably post a preprint).
  • "Being vocal": it goes against the instinct of some people, but in my experience a good strategy to fight against losing priority is to tell as many people as you can what you are working on. If you already give talks at conferences about your preliminary results, tell your collaborators, publish partial results, or blog about it, the word what you are working on is out there long before your paper actually appears. This has two effects. (1) It detracts people from working on your topic in parallel (or, if they already are, seek collaboration). Your competitors fear the same thing you fear (and, if they are just getting started, they may feel that you are way ahead of them). (2) Even if somebody beats you to publication, the community is well aware that you and your competitor just worked in parallel on the same topic (see also "multiple discoveries").
6
  • 3
    As a sidenote, I am tempted to agree with @AnonymousPhysicist - spending lots of effort not to get scooped is almost certainly less useful than using this time to progress in the actual research. That's why I mostly follow the "being vocal" strategy in my answer - because it only consists of things I want to do anyway (telling people about my work).
    – xLeitix
    Apr 30, 2020 at 11:30
  • I have not till date given any talk about my work in any conference. So I am confused what's the best way to deal with my problem
    – Charlotte
    Apr 30, 2020 at 12:17
  • why to submit to arxiv.org, it moderates papers and they are published after several hours. alternatively paper can be published in a free hosting (like static file hosting, php-mysql hosting, maybe even services like dropbox are usable), or in the author's institution's server and then save that file in archive.org or archive.li ? or even publish that paper in txt format in a public paste service in forever mode? or even publish that paper as a facebook post, or in other such site, that saves post date?
    – qdinar
    Jan 30, 2023 at 17:17
  • @qdinar Because the scientific community trusts arXiv's timestamps. If you post it on your blog and later say "but my blog was online weeks before that paper" this will carry a lot less weight.
    – xLeitix
    Mar 28, 2023 at 11:43
  • 1
    @qdinar "I used a specific tech to prove a time stamp" is only more reliable than your word of honour if I confirm the tech is reliable. In practice, that makes it as reliable as your word if you use an obscure tech (like archive.li). Meanwhile, if I use arXiv, they trust arXiv, so my claim is stronger than my word of honour. Being able to prove something in a court of law is not the goal, the goal is making your claim obviously true.
    – Yakk
    Apr 11, 2023 at 16:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .