A philosopher elsewhere writes:
Regarding redundant publications in Analysis, I was recently asked to review a paper for Analysis. As soon as I started reading the paper, I realized that I had just reviewed a longer version of the same paper for another journal. (Same thesis, same arguments.) That first paper had been accepted for publication, but as far as I know, had not actually been published. I recommended that Analysis reject the paper for this reason. But it occurred to me that it was just dumb luck that I was asked to review both. Had someone else reviewed either in place of me, then the Analysis paper might have been accepted for publication before anyone realized the overlap.
Another young philosopher writes:
I also have never seen a "retraction" like the one Analysis posted, but the phenomenon of redundant publication is no doubt widespread in analytic philosophy. In my experience, it coincides with the rise of "salami slicing" in our field, and both are obvious side-effects of a publish or perish culture. I wonder whether something like a reporting system could deter it, e.g., where journals allow anonymous (or not) reporting of redundant publications. Even if these kinds of announcements are rare, the mere threat of them would likely have some deterrent effect, or so I would hope.
I'm not sure we want to encourage anonymous "informants," and I do worry a lot of editorial time may be wasted in following up leads. Maybe the APA could take a break from its diversity obsession and convene a committee to articulate some standards or expectations on this score, both for authors and for journals that suspect they have issued a "redundant" publication. If folks have ideas, please post them below. Do not "call out" alleged redundant publications, please.
