Check conference and journal submission status before sending another version

1. Separate presentation, publication and consideration

Record what exists: slides shown at a meeting, a short abstract published in a supplement, a complete proceedings paper, a preprint or a journal manuscript. Also record what is happening: invited, submitted, under review, accepted, withdrawn or published. A document type and an editorial status answer different questions, so give them separate fields.

ICMJE advises against simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals, including in different languages. Its overlap guidance also distinguishes preliminary reports from full reports. Apply the destination’s actual policy to the identified material.

Do not rely on memory or the conference’s marketing label. Open the public item when available and inspect the files or acceptance terms the author received. An identifier or proceedings title can help locate the item, but neither alone establishes whether it contains an abstract or a complete study report.

Reference: ICMJE: overlapping publications

2. Build a status calendar with evidence

Give each version an internal label and record the date, recipient, submission identifier, file supplied and evidence of its present status. Link a journal decision to the manuscript it actually concerns. A decision about a preliminary abstract should not be attached to a later full manuscript as if it resolved that manuscript’s status.

The table uses wholly fictional documents and dates. It is a proposed record, not evidence about any real conference or journal. In practice, verify status through the relevant system or correspondence available to the authorised author. Leave a blank or contradictory field unresolved until it is investigated.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

3. Give each situation a different next action

For version A, prepare the full report and identify the public abstract accurately. BMJ’s formatting guidance specifically asks for acknowledgement of prior presentation and citation of published conference abstracts. This example is not a promise that a particular new manuscript will be accepted.

For version B, obtain the accepted full text and relevant terms, then compare the proposed journal version by question, participants, outcomes and contribution. Tell the journal about the accepted proceedings paper and provide the requested material. Until the editor assesses that relationship and the authors resolve applicable permissions, the invitation to send another paper does not settle the question.

For version C, the supplied facts show continuing journal consideration. Renaming the file, changing the first author or translating it does not resolve that state. The team should deal with the existing submission before representing the manuscript to another journal as available for ordinary exclusive consideration.

Reference: BMJ Author Hub: formatting and prior conference presentation

4. Document a withdrawal request accurately

ICMJE states that authors making a good-faith withdrawal request may consider the manuscript withdrawn even without confirmation. Keep that guidance distinct from a workflow preference for an acknowledged closure, and examine the actual journal policy and circumstances.

Send a clear request through the journal’s official route, identifying the manuscript and the authors represented. Preserve what was sent, when it was sent and any response. Do not write “withdrawal confirmed” if the record contains only the request. If the portal and correspondence disagree, ask a focused clarification and retain the discrepancy rather than manufacturing a clean status.

Coordinate the decision within the author group. If the manuscript has already been accepted or published, or the status is disputed, seek the applicable editorial process rather than treating the ordinary under-review scenario as identical. This guide cannot determine the effect of an actual publishing agreement or resolve a contested case.

Reference: ICMJE: submission and peer-review responsibilities

5. Make the explanation travel with the manuscript

A useful disclosure names the prior version, its status, the location available to the editor and the relationship to the proposed paper. Explain any additional data or changed interpretation from the actual record. Supply copies where requested. Avoid a vague statement that the research “was seen before” when a complete proceedings paper has been accepted.

Compare the cover letter, manuscript citations and portal answers after upload. The same status should appear consistently. When a field offers only yes or no, use the relevant explanation field or official query route for necessary context. A constrained form is not a reason to provide an answer that misdescribes the situation.

6. Maintain the calendar until the publication path is settled

Assign one person to update the calendar while the corresponding author retains responsibility for journal communications. Capture new decisions promptly and tell co-authors when the status changes. If a conference publication appears online during journal review, record its actual content and date and notify the editor as the relevant policy requires.

Use the calendar to prevent contradictory actions: one colleague submitting a revised version while another still believes the original is being considered elsewhere. Recheck it before any new submission, transfer or public status claim. The deliverable is a factual account of versions and decisions, with unresolved rights or editorial questions plainly identified, not a certificate that all possible duplication concerns have disappeared.

Questions for a practical final check

• Document type and status have separate fields.
• Each state has a dated source.
• Full proceedings content is assessed explicitly.
• The current journal consideration is addressed.
• Requests and confirmations are not conflated.
• The submitted disclosures match the calendar.