The ethics of exclusive submission: a narrative review of reciprocity in the author–journal relationship

Abstract

Exclusive manuscript submission is a longstanding norm of scholarly publishing intended to protect finite peer-review resources, prevent duplicate publication and preserve the integrity of the scholarly record. While the ethical obligations required of authors are well established, the reciprocal obligations assumed by journals during exclusive consideration have received comparatively little attention. We conducted a narrative review of publication-ethics guidance, editorial policies, empirical studies of peer-review workload and review duration, bibliometric analyses and scholarship on reciprocity, examining exclusive submission as a reciprocal arrangement and not only as a rule of author conduct. The evidence supports the ethical justification for the norm but identifies asymmetries between author and journal obligations across time, labour and value, accountability and enforcement. The author’s obligation takes effect at submission, is precisely specified and is backed by defined sanctions. The journal’s obligations are real but differently constituted: complaints and appeals procedures exist and are required of journals, yet decision periods are seldom stated in advance, performance reporting is not standardised and no independent forum holds remedial authority over delay. Reliance on a lone median decision time compounds the difficulty, since a measure of central tendency alone does not describe a right-skewed distribution. Exclusive submission remains ethically defensible, and its legitimacy is strengthened when it is understood to bind both parties. We set out recommendations addressing the timeliness of decisions, the reporting of editorial performance and the availability of recourse, none of which releases an author from exclusivity or adds to reviewer burden. The gap appears to owe more to convention than to any real constraint on resources.