Raphael Stricker and Billi Goldberg suggest that, based on a single unfortunate experience they have had with the peer-review system, they should be allowed to submit a manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously.1 I hope this idea is rapidly quashed. All professional scientists who are journal reviewers or editors will know that the volume of manuscripts that circulate within the publishing system is already uncomfortably high. Each year, I review about 75 manuscripts, and I edit another 20 or so. I very much doubt that I am unique. Multiply that workload by n, where n is the number of journals to which a manuscript is simultaneously submitted, and the wheels would fall off the system. Stricker and Goldberg need, therefore, to consider the other side of the peer review system, and not just their own unfortunate problems.

I also disagree with Alexander Berezin, who favors a "publish all" strategy without...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!