Can You Submit a Paper to Two Journals at Once? The Rules, Explained
Simultaneous submission is one of the clearest lines in publishing ethics, and also one of the most misunderstood, because preprints, transfers, and conference papers each look like exceptions and only some of them are.
Next step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.
Quick answer: Can you submit a paper to two journals at once? No. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is a clear breach of publishing ethics, and a paper may be under formal review at only one journal at a time. The rule exists because peer review is a scarce volunteer resource and because two acceptances create a duplicate-publication problem. Preprints, transfers, and post-rejection submissions look like exceptions, and only some of them are.
The line itself is simple. Where people get into trouble is the gray area around it, so the exceptions are worth getting exactly right.
Why the rule is absolute
Start with the reasoning, because it explains every exception. Peer review runs on unpaid reviewer time. When you submit to two journals at once, you spend two sets of reviewers on the same paper to get one publication, which is a waste the whole system is built to prevent. Worse, if both journals accept, you have created a duplicate publication, and disentangling that after the fact means retractions and awkward conversations with two sets of editors.
So the norm is one journal at a time, and it is enforced more than it used to be. Publishers now run cross-submission checks, and manuscript-tracking systems increasingly flag the same title and author list arriving at a sister journal. What was once nearly undetectable is now routinely caught, which changes the risk calculation entirely. The upside of parallel submission was always small, a few weeks saved. The downside is now a real chance of being flagged for a research-integrity breach.
The three common patterns of confusion
This is where honest authors trip, and it is worth naming the shapes. In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts, the concurrent-submission problems we see are almost never deliberate double-dipping. They are three specific failure patterns of misunderstanding the rule.
The first is the preprint mix-up. An author believes that posting a preprint counts as a submission, or the reverse, that a preprint lets them submit to two journals. What we see is that this is pure confusion: a preprint is not a journal submission, most journals allow it, and it has nothing to do with the one-journal-at-a-time rule. Post the preprint, then submit to one journal, and check that journal's preprint policy.
The second is the hedging temptation. Under deadline pressure, an author submits to two journals reasoning that they will withdraw from the slower one once the faster one bites. This is the actual violation, however reasonable it feels, because for the weeks in between the paper is genuinely under review at both. In practice it means the time saved is not worth the integrity risk, and the honest version is to submit to your best-fit journal first and move fast if it declines.
The third is the withdrawal-gap slip. An author is rejected or decides to move on, submits to the second journal, and only later formally withdraws from the first, leaving a window where the paper was live at both. The fix is sequencing: confirm the withdrawal or rejection from journal A before the paper touches journal B, with no overlap.
Here are the three side by side, because seeing what the author believed next to what is actually true is the fastest way to check yourself against them.
Pattern | What the author believes | The reality |
|---|---|---|
Preprint mix-up | A preprint counts as a submission, or licenses a second one | A preprint is not a submission; most journals allow it |
Hedging temptation | Submitting to two saves time; I will withdraw the loser | For the overlap weeks the paper is genuinely at both; a breach |
Withdrawal-gap slip | I have moved on, so the first journal no longer counts | The paper is live until the withdrawal is confirmed |
Manusights pre-submission guidance on concurrent submission.
None of these three is misconduct in intent. The second one becomes misconduct in effect, and all three are avoidable by understanding where the line actually sits.
What is allowed, and what is not
The exceptions are the whole difficulty, so lay them out plainly.
Situation | Allowed? | Note |
|---|---|---|
Same paper under review at two journals | No | The core rule; a breach of ethics |
Preprint plus one journal submission | Usually yes | Check the target journal's preprint policy |
Transfer within a publisher cascade | Yes | Sequential, not simultaneous; carries reviews |
Submit elsewhere after rejection or withdrawal | Yes | Confirm the withdrawal first |
Conference abstract developed into a paper | Usually yes | Disclose the prior version |
Adapted from COPE and publisher concurrent-submission policies (accessed August 2026).
The pattern to hold onto: everything allowed is sequential or is not a journal submission at all. The one banned thing is two live journal reviews at the same time.
How to withdraw cleanly before you move on
Most concurrent-submission trouble is really a sequencing problem, so the practical skill is withdrawing from the first journal without leaving a gap. The move is simple and worth doing precisely. Email the handling editor, or use the withdrawal option in the submission system, and state plainly that you are withdrawing the manuscript from consideration. Name the manuscript ID. Ask for written confirmation, and do not treat the paper as free until you have that confirmation in hand, because the paper is formally under review until the journal acknowledges the withdrawal.
The reason to be strict about the confirmation is that the risky window is exactly the gap between "I decided to withdraw" and "the journal agrees the paper is withdrawn." If you submit to journal B during that gap, you have created a genuine concurrent submission even though in your head you had already left journal A. Close the gap by waiting for the acknowledgment, and keep the email. A withdrawal you can prove turns any later question into a one-line answer.
One nuance on timing. If a journal has sat on your paper far past its stated review time and you want to move, you may withdraw first and then submit elsewhere, but you cannot short-circuit the order. Slowness is frustrating and it is still not a licence to run two reviews in parallel; the fix is to withdraw and then go, not to overlap.
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
What actually happens if you are caught
It helps to be concrete about the downside, because the abstract version ("it is unethical") undersells how the consequence actually lands. When cross-journal screening flags the same manuscript at two venues, the usual first step is that both editors are notified. Each can reject the paper on the spot, and neither is inclined to extend goodwill to an author who put them in that position. If the paper had already been accepted at one, the duplication has to be unwound, which can mean a retraction or an expression of concern that then attaches to your publication record.
Beyond the paper itself, many journals will notify the corresponding author's institution, framing it as a research-integrity concern for the institution to handle. That is a slow, uncomfortable process even when your intent was innocent, because you are now explaining a timeline months after the fact. Set against all of this, the upside of parallel submission was only ever a few weeks of calendar time. The expected value is badly negative, which is the whole reason the norm has held for so long.
The reassuring flip side: none of this is triggered by the legitimate moves. A preprint, a transfer, or a submission after a confirmed rejection does not put your paper at two live reviews, so it does not trip the screen or the norm. Understanding the rule is what lets you use every one of those paths with confidence.
When to worry, and when not to
Stop and fix it if: your paper is currently under review at more than one journal; you are about to submit to a second journal before confirming withdrawal from the first; or you are unsure whether your prior dissemination counts as a duplicate. Resolve the overlap before you do anything else.
You are fine if: you posted a preprint and submitted to one journal; you transferred within a publisher; or you submitted elsewhere after a confirmed rejection or withdrawal. Those are the normal, permitted moves.
The one habit that keeps you safe is sequencing every step and keeping the confirmation emails. A withdrawal you can prove closes the window cleanly.
What we see across manuscripts
Steering clear of a concurrent-submission problem is not about being the most cautious author. It is about grasping that the rule governs live reviews, not dissemination, and sequencing your moves accordingly. Use this guide when you are tempted to hedge across two journals or are unsure whether a preprint or transfer counts. The COPE and ICMJE guidance we reviewed sits in the sources below. If a journal declines and you are choosing where the paper goes next, our guidance on what to do after a rejection and the journal directory cover the sequential path, and a pre-submission review can confirm the paper is ready before it enters review at all.
Frequently asked questions
No. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is a breach of publishing ethics, treated as duplicate or concurrent submission. A paper may be under formal consideration at only one journal at a time. The rule exists because peer review is a scarce volunteer resource, and because two journals could accept and publish the same work, creating a duplicate-publication problem that is hard to unwind.
If it is discovered, and cross-journal screening increasingly discovers it, both journals can reject the paper immediately, and the incident can be reported to your institution as a research-integrity concern. Even when caught early and innocently, it burns goodwill with editors you may need again. The time it seems to save is small; the downside is large.
No. A preprint is not a journal submission, and most journals explicitly allow preprints. Posting to bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv, or SSRN and then submitting to one journal is standard and permitted, though a few journals still restrict it, so check the target journal's preprint policy. The thing that is banned is having the paper under formal review at two journals simultaneously.
Yes, and that is the normal path. Once a journal has formally rejected or you have formally withdrawn the paper, it is free to go elsewhere. The only trap is timing: make sure your withdrawal from the first journal is confirmed before you submit to the second, so there is never a window where the paper is live at both.
Transfers within a publisher's cascade are sequential, not simultaneous, so they are fine and often carry your reviews forward. Conference abstracts or proceedings are usually acceptable to develop into a journal article, but disclose the prior version and check the journal's policy on prior dissemination. Neither is a genuine exception to the one-journal-at-a-time rule.
Sources
- COPE, guidance on redundant or duplicate publication: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/redundant-duplicate-publication-submitted-manuscript
- ICMJE, overlapping publications and simultaneous submission: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/overlapping-publications.html
- ASAPbio, preprints and journal policies: https://asapbio.org/preprint-info/preprint-faq
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Your manuscript is never used to train any model.