Sending out 'different' papers with similar arguments?

In our March "how can we help you?" thread, a grad student writes:

Is it acceptable to simultaneously send out two papers which share the same general arguments but have vastly different presentations/styles (and even different conclusions)?

Example 1: Suppose there are multiple theories, A, B, C, D, and E, on an issue. You argue that a satisfactory theory should satisfy desiderata D1 and D2. You argue that theories A, B, and C fail to accomodate D1, theories D and E fail to accomodate D2. You argue that theory A with a restriction would accomodate both D1 and D2. Therefore, a restricted version of theory A is superior to all other views in the literature.

A reviewer proposes that you ignore B-E and just focus on A. You can instead argue that although theory A satisfies D2, theory A fails to accomodate the plausible desiderata D1, and this could be solved by adding in a restriction without compromising on D2.

Adopting the changes would result in a paper with a different conclusion (You will no longer be arguing for a view that is superior to all other views. You would be merely arguing that theory A needs a restriction). The presentation of the paper would also change substantially since it's focused on theory A rather than the broader literature. But the main general argument (that D1 is needed, and theory A with a restriction can accomodate D1 without compromising on D2) is the same. Would it be permissible to send out both the original version and the revised version to different journals given such differences?

Example 2: You have a standard paper, say 8k words long. Some reviewers recommend that you consider re-framing it as a reply paper to author X specifically, and make it a short reply-style paper (3k-4k). Doing so would change the presentation and style of the paper, omit a number of details (e.g. some objections and replies are left out), and cut out parts that connect to the broader literature so that you only focus on author X. But the shortern reply-style paper would still have the same general arguments. Would it be permissible to send out both the long version and short version to different journals given such differences?

This is an interesting query. I'm not entirely sure, but my sense is that Example 2 is probably impermissible but Example 1 more of a gray area case. The issue in both cases is that the main arguments are pretty similar, and if reviewers or editors at different journals found out about it, they might get upset about it. For this reason alone, my attitude has always been that it's not worth risking this kind of thing. The last thing you want to happen is for a referee or editor to make a formal complaint of research conduct--which, although the likelihood might be small, could be a real issue. Personally, I prefer to play it safe. What do you all think?

Comments

[William Peden]

I agree that Example 2 is more obviously wrong than Example 1.

I think that, in both cases, the right thing to do is to expand the arguments and perhaps introduce some closely related further issues. There is always more to be said. This takes more somewhat more work, but the result will be papers that you are more proud about.

[Thi N.]

A rule of thumb would be: would you be embarrassed if both were published, an somebody read them side-by-side? Would a reader be interested to read them both? Do they build on each other? Would a reader see the purpose for two different publications?

One way to approach it: would, with a bit of editing, the two papers be happy to be combined into something longer, say as different chapters in a book?

A lot of times, I think people are fine with a case where a philosopher discovers argument A, and discovers that it can be made to do work in responding to 4 different arguments in slightly different literatures. They write 4 papers, each of which reiterates argument A, and then shows how it impacts each different literature. If I were to read these papers side by side, I'd totally understand what was going on, I'd understand that they needed to repeat argument A in order to have stand-alone papers, and I would guess that these were the parts of something on the way to a book project. *Each part as to the larger picture of the impact of argument A*.

It can also make sense to write something for different audiences. (I know several cases where a philosopher has re-written one of their arguments in a less technical form for, say, an interdisiciplinary audience, to appear in an interdisciplinary publication. I have a paper that uses a case study to re-state an argument from a more technical paper, in the form of a case study, in a form that might be teachable to undergraduates. I was explicit about this in a footnote. But also I tried to put in case study details that would expand upon the idea for readers who already had read the tech-y academic version)

Other cases look like a cheap shot at getting a lot of publications, and add no real content but a slightly different frame. Those are gross.

[Tim]

It seems to me that there's a large amount of overlap between the same work of a given author across time. In fact, it seems to me that this is pretty common even amongst "top" journals and "top" scholars. So I have always assumed that what OP is describing is perfectly permissible. Consequently, I have done things like Example 1 and Example 2 before. I am doubtful that it is the best publication strategy. But I (personally) wouldn't see it going against disciplinary norms.

[Bill Vanderburgh]

Example 2 seems dodgy since the two papers are very similar and perhaps share too much content. But Example 1 seems like what I've seen frequently, at least over a career--different developments of very similar arguments in different contexts. To be safest, I would publish the one on theory A first, and then later submit the broader paper as an elaboration and extension of that first one.