2

I have submitted two manuscripts on physics both have analyzed a new finding by me but the methods of the "analysis" are different. They differ in data, results and figures, just at the end, the both are saying that; for example: X is better than Y.

Is this ethical?

Improve this question
2
  • What sort of "unethical" are you concerned with?
    – Bryan Krause ♦
    Commented Jul 8 at 15:33
  • Is the new idea in both? This could count as self plagiarism if so and you did not reference one in the other. If the new idea was in a preceding paper that both reference, you should be in the clear. There have been a decent number of posts here along these lines that give really good advice.
    – Cameron Williams
    Commented Jul 8 at 15:39

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4

There is no ethical concern as long as you have cross-cited the papers if necessary to avoid self plagiarism. That is probably not an issue given what you say, but I haven't seen the two papers.

Different directions of evidence or proof toward a result can be enlightening. Alternate proofs in math, for example, can lead to new insights.

It is, of course, up to publishers to decide whether to publish either of the papers.

Improve this answer
5
  • Thank you,Since both submissions are under review I couldn't cite one to the other as reference. submitted to two different journals.
    – Sarira Miri
    Commented Jul 8 at 15:51
  • 1
    You will probably have a chance to edit each paper before publication if accepted. You can add citations then. But you have some risk if you get the same reviewer for both papers, even from different journals. Be prepared to explain things to an editor.
    – Buffy
    Commented Jul 8 at 16:01
  • very good advice sir. Thank you very much.
    – Sarira Miri
    Commented Jul 8 at 16:04
  • 2
    @SariraMiri Another option would be to post pre-prints of the papers at the time of submission, and cite the pre-prints in the submissions.
    – Bryan Krause ♦
    Commented Jul 9 at 16:15
  • 1
    There is always "(submitted)" or "(in preparation)" as an option to cite a yet unpublished work. These are rightfully frowned upon, but in this context they would certainly be an improvement over not citing the other result at all.
    – mlk
    Commented Jul 10 at 12:55
11

Is this allowed? In theory and practice, yes, there are many mechanisms which would allow you to do it.

Is it ethical? It depends on perception.

In my opinion, this qualifies as "salami slicing", i.e. cutting up results to generate more papers. Now if you published one method, then discovered the other method is either better or worse and published it afterwards, that is just the progress of research.

However, and this is my opinion, grounded in my personal ethics for publications, what you are doing is unethical. You currently have both studies which together could form a more concrete and informative publication, yet you are deliberately choosing to split them, presumably to generate two, less-informative publications.

The good news is that my opinion, and those who share it will merely earn you an eye roll and less respect in the community. So really, what's that worth to you in the end?

Improve this answer
10
  • 5
    That is pretty bold, given that you haven't seen the papers.
    – Buffy
    Commented Jul 8 at 16:11
  • Thanks for the answer. For me the worth is getting more citation. two different jurnals give more chance to be seen, I think.
    – Sarira Miri
    Commented Jul 8 at 16:12
  • So, shall I withdraw one of them? or wait for when they sent back for revision.
    – Sarira Miri
    Commented Jul 8 at 16:15
  • 1
    @Buffy of course, it is all contingent on the papers. In such a situation I would personally err on the side of submitting a large paper. Often an editor will slice the papers for you (ie make the decision for you) and publish them back-to-back in the same issue. This is to improve readability. Again, there is nothing "wrong" with what the OP is doing, but there are also more universally accepted and rather "respected" ways to do it.
    – R1NaNo
    Commented Jul 8 at 16:37
  • 2
    Over decades the scientists found parameter X is the answer for a problem in physics. more than 70 paper I have read showing such opinion. I have found that it is not. When I submitted the first method I said it is not enough. Then I looked for the more analysis for proof that. Then I found the second methods and I submitted it to other journal. This is the story of why I did two submissions.
    – Sarira Miri
    Commented Jul 8 at 17:18
0

It is natural to be very proud of solving a problem.

But in my experience, the method used to solve the problem, or even just the adaptation of an existing method to your setting, is often a more important result than the problem's solution on its own.

It's highly dependent on the field of course, and impossible for us to judge without reading your work, but it might very well be worth publishing two papers with a focus on the methods, rather than one paper with a focus on the problem's solution.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Thanks sir. This was what I mean. Also, when I put two methods with discussion it is almost 30 pages. No one wnts to read such long materials. I counted it was 8 figures and 6 tables. Thank you all. I got what I must.
    – Sarira Miri
    Commented Jul 9 at 17:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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