In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Damian writes:
Around a year ago a paper of mine was desk rejected by a few of the top 20 philosophy journals. Since then I have completely revised the paper, to the degree that only the topic (broadly construed) remains the same and some expository parts remain the same. The paper now has a completely different title, a completely different argumentative structure, and a completely different conclusion than the reject version.
Since I still believe that some of the journals that desk rejected the old version are a good fit for this paper, my question is, whether it's fine if I resend the new version to them?
This is a good question, and one that I faced earlier in my career. I think the answer is 'no.' Even if the paper is 'completely revised', my sense is that the journal is likely to consider it a newer version of the original paper that was desk-rejected. Although I suppose it's possible that you might get away with it, I suspect an editor is probably likely to realize that it's a paper that was already submitted. They might not only see the old one in their system when they log in (if they briefly review your previous submissions); they might also read the paper to see if it's worth sending out to reviewers and recall the earlier version–and I imagine this could really irritate them, particularly if you changed the title (which they might find intentionally deceptive).
To be clear, I'm not sure about any of this. However, the longer I've gone in my career, the more it's seemed to me that it's not worth taking risks like this. If a journal rejected an earlier version of my paper, I won't consider that journal an option for it. There are other good journals, after all. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?
Leave a Reply