In our March “how can we help you?” thread, a reader writes:
I wrote a paper that examined 3 issues and it was rejected by two journals (with years in between), with both sets of reviewers suggesting I focus on only one of the issues. I massively expanded the discussion of that issue so the paper focused only on that, is it acceptable to re-submit it to one of the journals that previously rejected it? It has a new title and is at least 2/3 of the paper is brand new material.
Good question! Another reader replied:
That is a new paper to my mind. I’d keep getting opinions, but here is at least one “go ahead” intuition.
My intuition is that it’s almost certainly “acceptable” to submit a paper like this to a journal that rejected a (vastly) different version years earlier. However, my main question is: how do journal editors see this sort of thing? Do they look at the author’s submission history, and if so, would they be unlikely to consider a paper like this? I’m really curious to hear answers from editors and/or authors who have done this, as I’ve been in this position too before and been uncertain about whether doing this sort of thing is a waste of time. What do you all think?
Originally appeared on The Philosophers’ Cocoon Read More