next »

[monkeydoc]

I've spent the last two day searching the research forum looking for an answer and could not find one that seemed specific to my question, although I'm sure it is not a novel dilemma.

Dilemma:

1. Colleague and I are co-authoring a paper that addresses a) a medical condition from b) a theoretical perspective. It is a review paper in which a novel series of hypotheses is explored. We plan on submitting to Major Review Journal, outside medicine.  Let's say this paper equally weighs Condition A with Theory B.
2. In addition to this paper, we were invited to submit a chapter to a book on this medical condition. The audience for the book is decidedly medical, and the piece that would be of most interest to the readership of Major Review Journal would be downplayed in the book chapter, so that Condition A>Theory B.
3. Finally, there is one set of hypotheses developed in Major Review Journal ms that can be completely stripped away from the medical condition, and is in my view one of the more exciting elelments of that ms. So I can envision a paper that expands upon Theory B and makes only passing reference to Condition A as an interesting "side effect" (although that's not even necessary), so that Theory B>>Condition A. This would be placed in a journal that was specific to our immediate field, whereas Major Review Journal has a much more general readership, hence the broader focus.

Is this a legit publishing plan? Should the editors be notified of this thematic breakdown upon submission? How different do these need to be? To be clear, these are all theoretical papers, no new data. I just finished reading two articles, four years apart, by the same (very senior and very well-respected) researcher, and I am hard-pressed to differentiate any major themes or arguments, but they were placed in very different journals with very different readerships.  For what it's worth, both Colleague and I are pretenure, so getting stuff out is a major concern for us both, and we feel that the novel hypotheses are pretty hot.

[jackit]

This sounds OK to me.  The chapter will not focus on your theoretical proposal.  The only real question is whether you can count on the proposed ms. (#3) after writing the key proposal ms. (#1).  

Remember, long tour de force papers are generally not appreciated, by either reviewers or readers.  Keep #1 moderately short and relatively focused, and you will leave plenty of room to expand in #3.

[monkeydoc]

This sounds OK to me.  The chapter will not focus on your theoretical proposal.  The only real question is whether you can count on the proposed ms. (#3) after writing the key proposal ms. (#1).  

Remember, long tour de force papers are generally not appreciated, by either reviewers or readers.  Keep #1 moderately short and relatively focused, and you will leave plenty of room to expand in #3.

Thanks Jackit! For the journal to which we are submitting #1, long and tour de force is the way to go, but even so, I think we still have plenty of room to expand for #3. I do take your point though, and will see how much more streamlining I can do on the section to be expanded for #3.

[sturmunddrang]

For what it's worth, both Colleague and I are pretenure, so getting stuff out is a major concern for us both, and we feel that the novel hypotheses are pretty hot.

To me, how this decision would impact your tenure package is far more important than how publishers/editors might react.  You should definitely speak to someone in Faculty Development [if you have that available at your institution] or a senior colleague, etc.. regarding this scenario as it could actual prove problematic when you are up for tenure.  Ask yourself: is it possible that people who review your case -  internal or external - will think that you are basically publishing the same thing over and over again?  This is an issue that often derails cases at my SLAC. Or perhaps the approach you outline is acceptable at your school and/or w/in your discipline. 

[pgher]

The only aspect that puts me off a little is #3.  It needs to be substantially different from #1.  I think doing #2 is OK, since book chapters are distinguished enough from journal articles.

I once reviewed a paper that was the same, in essence, as a paper by the same authors in a different journal.  It was rejected, because ultimately journals are archival and readership matters little.  That is, in principle, people in field X may not normally read journals in field Y, but could find your work in Journal of Y Studies with an in-depth literature review.  Now, if we were talking about a magazine article, the story would be different, because then readership matters.

Oh, and you definitely need to self-cite as things get published.

[mozman]

Hell, when I was a grad student, I created a mathematical model (of a particular disease system).  I got two papers from that model just investigating two different aspects of it.

Last year, I was able to slightly modify it to address different system, and got a paper out of that.

This year I made an even smaller modification to address yet another system, and am writing that up.

I intend to do this every year or so until I retire.

[monkeydoc]

The only aspect that puts me off a little is #3.  It needs to be substantially different from #1.  I think doing #2 is OK, since book chapters are distinguished enough from journal articles.

I once reviewed a paper that was the same, in essence, as a paper by the same authors in a different journal.  It was rejected, because ultimately journals are archival and readership matters little.  That is, in principle, people in field X may not normally read journals in field Y, but could find your work in Journal of Y Studies with an in-depth literature review.  Now, if we were talking about a magazine article, the story would be different, because then readership matters.

Oh, and you definitely need to self-cite as things get published.

Right, I should have mentioned that I understand that in many ways it doesn't matter what journal you publish in because PubMed or Google Scholar etc. searches will bring up what you want, but I was trying to use the example of the senior person's virtually indistinguishable pieces in two very different journals. The intention is to craft #3 as a stand-alone piece, but it would piggyback from #1. Theory B provides a background for understanding Condition A in piece #1, whereas #2 would deeply explore Theory B with no need to even bring up or link to Condition A. The titles of the pieces would make this clear. All of the replies here are driving home the need to make this distinction really clear and unassailable, and I appreciate that.

[jackit]

Hell, when I was a grad student, I created a mathematical model (of a particular disease system).  I got two papers from that model just investigating two different aspects of it.

Last year, I was able to slightly modify it to address different system, and got a paper out of that.

This year I made an even smaller modification to address yet another system, and am writing that up.

I intend to do this every year or so until I retire.

This is often the way I work, as well.

Modify.  Publish.  Repeat.

[shrek]

I think it's okay, just be careful not to lift sentences, sections, paragraphs, etc. from one paper to another.

[obprof]

I think it's ok. One thing that might help is to wait a little while in between each project (i.e., don't do them all at once).

After you've had some time to reflect, your thinking / argumentation might change a little bit more. You may also be able to update the reference somewhat. Both things should make each subsequent article a little more original.

[oldfullprof]

I did this: book, article, chapter.  Got tenured with no problem.