Sabotaging the rules of journal publication is a form of academic dishonesty (and should have consequences similar to those of plagiarism)
It seems to me that when you intentionally put your paper online while it is under consideration at some journal, you want that paper to be spotted as having you as an author. More extreme cases – and quite a few (I don’t want to mention names, as some of them are my acquaintances) – are those who also:
(a) put their paper online together with a footnote containing acknowledgments to `big names` or `young stars` of philosophy. (I myself did it, a few years ago, for which I’m ashamed)
(b) conform to point (a) and mention in their CV or even in draft that the paper is submitted to, say, The Journal of Philosophy.
The psychology behind such behavior is pretty clear, and, believe me, such things are not done by people affiliated as grad students or profs to, say, University of Alma Ata. For instance, I did it many times as a grad student, but without the belief that it will make publication easier, just for getting some attention (I was a grad student at the Central European University – stupid kid, you know), and a couple of times after graduating (when at Australian National University for a one-year research visit), with the belief that it will further my cause. (What actually turned out to be the case with respect to my beliefs is a long and funny (or unfunny) story, which I might write about in my autobiography, later, when I’ll be a `big name` in philosophy.
More importantly, I strongly believe now that such behavior should be as harshly punished as plagiarism. It falls under the concept of academic dishonesty, in more than one way. Once because it sabotages the rules of journal publication, so that the reputation of journals as applying blind refereeing will slowly become meaningless. Second, because the perpetrators mention in their CVs a category called “refereed papers”, which they fill up with their papers that have been accepted by journals; and that is simply a lie, so it is dishonest.
Any views on this?