I have a forthcoming book on a given topic. I would like to extend a section that deals with a significant topic per se into a full (though not very long) paper. Would the paper be desk-rejected?

The chapter includes the following on that subject: - background - methodology - applications

The paper would provide a background and methodology (similar, obviously), but I underline that this paper brings new relative to the forthcoming chapter: - further applications - a more detailed presentation of the methodology.

Is it a long shot? It is worth expanding into a paper?

In the worst case scenario, I can just leave it as a working paper and present it as part of the book at some conferences, I guess.

  • Can you explain why you do not just place the more detailed presentation into the book -- is it because the book is already accepted and in press? Another question that I think others will ask: why didn't you describe the methodology in full detail in the book? In general "expanding" a book into a paper sounds a bit strange. Oct 30, 2017 at 17:27
  • There is no place to present a detailed exposition of that method (the book is already quite lengthy). This is not about expanding a book into a paper but a section from a given chapter into a more detailed paper. Oct 31, 2017 at 5:09

1 Answer 1


The main issues here are that you can't self-plagiarize, and you most likely need to convince the referees and editors that there is sufficient "novel" content to justify publication. If there is enough new material in the paper, you should be able to prove this. If you feel yourself "stretching" the arguments too much, then it's probably not such a good idea.

An alternative would be to write the paper as a "successor," rather than as an "expansion."

  • It probably would not have been a problem if the paper would have been first, right?
    – Carsten S
    Oct 30, 2017 at 17:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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