Optimizing Journal Management to Meet the Challenge of Multi-Submission: Deep Analysis and Strategic Innovation of Review and Publication Cycle
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71222/5e068g28Keywords:
simultaneous submission, journal management, peer review cycle, publication cycle, strategic innovation, experimental analysisAbstract
As the competition in the academic publishing market intensifies, the phenomenon of simultaneous submission of a single manuscript to multiple journals poses a serious challenge to journal management. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the issue and the current state of the publication review cycle. Utilizing theoretical frameworks and methodologies, it constructs a model for analyzing the peer review and publication process. This model employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative analyses, and involves data collection and preprocessing to define research hypotheses. At the strategic innovation level, this study uses both domestic and international journals as case studies to compare the effectiveness of different response strategies and to investigate the challenges they face as well as potential opportunities. Through comprehensive analysis, this paper proposes innovative strategies to optimize journal management and effectively address the issue of simultaneous submissions. These strategies promise to have a positive and profound impact on the academic publishing industry.
References
1. M. Negahdary, "Simultaneous submission of a manuscript to more than one journal: challenges and solutions," Publ. Res. Q., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 188-191, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s12109-017-9507-6.
2. L. A. C. Tarcitano, "The simultaneous submission of a manuscript to more than one scientific publication: a legitimate strategy?," Rev. Bras. Geriatr. Gerontol., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 259-260, 2018, doi: 10.1590/1981-22562018021.180096.
3. J. A. Freischlag, "Simultaneous submission should not result in simultaneous publication," Arch. Surg., vol. 141, no. 11, pp. 1064-1064, 2006, doi: 10.1001/archsurg.141.11.1064.
4. P. Lugosi, "The value creation cycle of peer review," Ann. Tour. Res., vol. 86, no. C, p. 103092, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.103092.
5. J. A. Drozdz and M. R. Ladomery, "The peer review process: past, present, and future," Br. J. Biomed. Sci., vol. 81, p. 12054, 2024, doi: 10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054.
6. L. Sun, A. Chan, Y. S. Chang, and S. P. Dow, "ReviewFlow: Intelligent scaffolding to support academic peer reviewing," in Proc. 29th Int. Conf. Intell. User Interfaces, Mar. 2024, pp. 120-137, doi: 10.1145/3640543.3645159.
7. I. Glendinning et al., "Is peer review fit for purpose? Enhancing integrity and professional standards in publications," J. Acad. Writ., vol. 15, no. S1, pp. 1-15, 2025, doi: 10.18552/joaw.v15iS1.1069.
8. D. Babik, E. Gehringer, J. Kidd, K. Sunday, D. Tinapple, and S. Gilbert, "A systematic review of educational online peer-review and assessment systems: Charting the landscape," Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 1653-1689, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11423-024-10349-x.
9. W. Kaltenbrunner, K. Birch, and M. Amuchastegui, "Editorial work and the peer review economy of STS journals," Sci., Technol., Hum. Values, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 670-697, 2022, doi: 10.1177/01622439211068798.
10. C. Tan, D. Lyu, S. Li, Z. Gao, J. Wei, S. Ma, et al., "Peer review as a multi-turn and long-context dialogue with role-based interactions," arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05688, 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05688.
11. M. Bigolin, E. Reategui, S. García Cabeza, and R. Motz, "Student perception of peer review in the digital age," in Proc. Latin Am. Conf. Learn. Technol., Oct. 2023, pp. 242-253, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-7353-8_19.
