Submitting a 'basically new' paper to a journal that rejected an early version?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread a reader asks:

Is it ever okay to submit a basically-new paper based on a rejected paper to the same journal that rejected the first version? Another way of framing the question - at what point (if ever) does a paper become so different as for it to be acceptable to submit to the same journal it was rejected from?

I had a paper rejected from a journal (rightfully so), and have since basically re-written a new paper with a very similar vibe. Only ~15% of the content is word-for-word from the old version, the thesis/framing are completely different, and the main argument is completely different. However, some of the key moves and examples are the same, and my guess is that it would be pretty easy to tell that this paper was based on the first one if you had read both. Their vibes and spirit are definitely very very similar. Neither referee objected to the vibe or spirit of the paper (in fact, both said that a substantially revised version of the paper could be published and the core ideas were promising).

There are few journals who have a record of being open to publishing in the niche sub-field the paper is in, which means it would be great if I could send it back to this journal. I wouldn't, however, want to do anything that might be viewed as disrespectful or deceptive to the editors of the journal, or submit it if it's standard to desk reject papers that seem vaguely similar to past submissions. Any advice would be welcome!

I've seen this question discussed here (maybe here at the Cocoon), and my sense was that the general consensus was 'no.' But maybe I'm misremembering? Can it be worth a try? Or should authors always try a new journal, even when there might seem to be few options available?

What do readers think?

Comments

[slac assc]

It might depend on how much time has passed. I did something similar at PQ a few years back, but there was more than a two-year gap between submissions. Try to imagine your reaction if the editor notices and asks you about it. If it's shame/embarrassment, it might be better to not submit, or to give a heads-up before doing so.

[Early career]

One possible maneuver: If the journal has contact information for their editor(s), send an inquiry about this to them. Don't send the paper unsolicited in that email, but explain the situation as you have done here, and see what their policy is in-house. You wouldn't be overburdening any reviewers at this stage, only giving the editor one email to read and respond to.

[Transparency]

I’m neither an expert on this nor an editor, but why not use the cover letter to tell the editor the situation, and let them decide what to do with it? That might allow you to make your case while also being fully transparent.

[Tim O'Keefe]

Strong agree with "early career." Go ahead and ask, giving the relevant details. The editor shouldn't mind, and the worst that can happen is that they say "no."

[academic migrant]

I did it with one journal, with more than 70% rewritten but argued for the exact same conclusion. Asked the editorial assistant to pass on the message to the EIC first though. Didn't get accepted but when out for peer review, so quite grateful towards the EIC for a second shot. Got accepted in the next journal I submitted to though.

[MindLang]

This has been discussed before:

https://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2020/12/submitting-a-different-version-of-a-paper.html

https://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2022/04/submitting-a-vastly-revised-paper-years-after-rejection.html

My perspective: unless you’re in a field like aesthetics where there are very few specialty journals, there isn’t much to gain from fixating on one journal.

[Transparency 2]

I am with @Transparency.
If the journal asks "has this paper been submitted to this journal before" answer yes and give the identifier.
Then at the cover letter, highlight this again by perhaps saying "A version of it has been submitted before. I am grateful for the referee reports that took it into a new and better direction"
No need to argue how different it is, hopefully this will be apparent from a cursory reading. e.g., title, intro.
Accept that it would be up to the editor to decide.

[UK Grad Student]

To those who answered anything other than "it's fine": presumably there's some point at which a paper becomes sufficiently different from its previous iterations such that it's appropriate to submit to the same journal without a cover letter. At what point would that be?

[ruferee]

UK Grad
Here is an answer ... if the paper is likely to go out to the same referees, then it is inappropriate to send it to the same journal.

[Transparency 2]

@ruferee Interesting criterion!--but sometimes same papers do get different referees and different papers get same referees, though I am not sure about likelihood.

@Uk Maybe trust your gut feeling? I think that it is safe to assume that if people feel the need to come ask, chances are that this is not the case of a simple green light. e.g., I have revised a draft so different than before that I submitted to the same journal without hesitation. It was very clear to me that it was a different paper.

[slac assc]

UK Grad Student: why assume epistemicism here?