Double Submission Research Articles

Del director One of the pleasures of editing diisjournal has been die new contacts and friendships I've enjoyed uirough the Council of Editors of Learned Journals, an international organization of editors in the humanities (http://www.celj.org). My first contact with die CELJ was in 1996 when La coránica applied for -and won as runner-up- die Phoenix Award bestowed on Journals that have launched an overall effort of revitalization or transformation.... This award goes to die most improved journal, regardless of its state at the time the renovations began . A weakjournal that has become excellent is eligible, but so too is an admiredjournal that manages to become dramatically better. In die years since, I have been privileged to serve on CELJ juries for several of its annual prizes and invited to participate on its editors' panels at the Congress of Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, die MLA, and for die Medieval Academy ofAmerica. One of the perennial topics we discuss when we face audiences who want to get published, audiences of all ages and ranks in the academy, is what moves editors to accept or reject submissions. This is more than a practical matter for us. It is also an index of die ethics that guide us, and we ponder our responsibilities constandy in person, on our editors' listserv, and in print in our CELJ website, Newsletter, and theJournal ofScholarly Publishing. There are many reasons why academic writers are eager to please and even more eager to get a job, hang on to die job they've got, secure tenure or score a promotion. Even full professors who have nowhere to go are often anxious to prove (at least to tfiemselves) that dieir prior success as published scholars was not a fluke, and diat diey've still got what it takes to pass the scrutiny of dieir peers. Everyone secredy longs for diose insider dps diat will smooth the way toward publication. Some readers of this journal may be hoping for cautionary tales about how not to excite die ire of all-powerful editors, and we do get righdy exercised over careless or inepdy prepared manuscripts, and 2 George D. GreeniaLa corónica 32.2, 2004 over lethargic and imperious aufhors. We willingly tell you diat our work is mosdy unpaid volunteer labor, with uncertain rewards from our professional peers, chairs and deans. The truth, of course, is diat editors are far from all-powerful, and in our more mundane moments we're pretty much drudges to die endless secretarial tasks diat fall to us, like sorting submissions and keeping up with electronic and hardcopy correspondence. Guidance on formal procedures for getting published and lists of common mistakes and misprisions on how die system works are available from many sources, including die CELJ website. The politics of getting published is a bit more curious, diough hardly counterintuitive, and has litde to do widi politicking editors or anyone else serving in an editorial or publishing role in die academic world. The "politics" is mosdy proscriptive and is a simple matter ofquality. In die long run it would be as impolitic for us as editors to publish trivial and ill-conceived articles as it is impolitic for their authors to allow diem to get into print even at die gain of another line on dieir CV. It's probably more useful to offer a few ideas on die "eüiics" of getting published, the moral imperatives that guide die conduct of editors and audiors alike. The efhical obligations of aufhors, at least in their broad oudines, are not unknown to diem. The practice of double submission -sending an article manuscript simultaneously to two or morejournals- is an abuse of our attention and energies, and somediing we regard as a professional and ethical breach oftrust. The same hold true for plagiarism, lack of proper documentation, failure to secure copyright when appropriate, and the usual roster of sins. It may be more helpful to disclose some of die educai obligations editors feel so keenly but rarely get to share. As editors we have an efhical obligation first and foremost "to die profession". That's bureaucratic shordiand for "to the trudi", which...