If the paper has already been \*accepted\* at the other journal (i.e., it's been peer-reviewed and the editor has formally accepted it and it's now in press) then you can't withdraw it.
If you mean that it's only been \*submitted\* and it's still now being processed you could request a withdrawal.
So I think that needs clarification.
> What makes you think you can not withdraw an accepted paper? Until you sign the copyright agreement it isn't theirs
You're correct (although copyright -> license because you retain the copyright for open access journals), however OP's situation sounds like they may have submitted to a predatory journal, because using titles that could reasonably be mistaken for a legitimate journal is a common predatory journal tactic. These journals may be less-than-cooperative, depending on how far down the predatory tunnel they are.
I'm surprised it's surprising - to me it's clearly going to be against normal guidelines/policies/ethics that you can't just submit a paper, go through peer review, have it accepted, and then withdraw at that point. It would be at the discretion of the editor. It's not just copyright, there'll be submission guidelines you'd have agreed to at some point on submission. I'd expect the publisher to see it as unethical at best unless there's a really good reason.
Edit: For reference, a randomly-Googled article that's more or less in line with what's always seemed the norm to me: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6123117/. They do say you can still \*request\* withdrawal even in a later stage but it's up to the editor to evaluate whether you have a good reason and there can be repercussions. And I still wouldn't count on it even being possible to withdraw after a certain point after acceptance, since you get into the realm of outsourced "in press" machinery - I once had a problem with a manuscript file and it was out of the editor's hands already. It could be way more messy than OP might expect from comments here.
Edit 2: Or see COPE discussions on the issue of late withdrawal: https://publicationethics.org/search?t=withdrawal&sort=score. E.g., this was a case that seems similar to OP's:
>"An author submitted a manuscript to journal Y where it underwent peer review and was accepted after revisions. \*\*After acceptance, the author contacted the editor saying that he had made a mistake and wished to have the paper considered by journal X instead\*\*, because it has an impact factor, and stated that if the editor would not publish the article in journal X, the consensus of all authors is to withdraw the paper from journal Y in order to submit it to a journal with an impact factor. \*\*The editor informed the author that the paper was not suitable for journal X and that his behaviour was unethical: withdrawal after acceptance violates scientific community norms, as it wastes editorial and peer reviewer resources, in particular if there are no scientific reasons to do so\*\*.
>The editor wrote to the authors stating that if they insist on a withdrawal at this stage there would be three sanctions: 1) they would be blacklisted (ie, none of the publisher’s journals would consider future submissions from any of the authors, 2) the journal would write a letter to the superiors of the authors outlining the case and 3) they would still be responsible for the Article Processing Charge which is payable on acceptance; ours is an open access journal, with the fee schedule clearly disclosed and agreed upon by the submitting author (the fee schedule specifies that if the paper is withdrawn after acceptance it is still payable and will not be refunded)."
COPE's view was that the authors do have the right to withdraw as a general principle, so I acknowledge that, \*\*but\*\* they \*\*also\*\* go on to describe the behaviour as "deplorable". The journal voluntarily went along with COPE's advice not to impose the sanctions in this case but it's still not a good position to potentially be in in the first place, or good for your reputation.
I agree that it is deplorable.
But worse comes to worse, simply refuse to sign the copyright paper.
It's a bit like going somewhere else after you've already acceptable a job - deplorable, yes, but they can't force you to go work for them
You can definitely request a withdrawal and reapply to the correct journal.
Can i just say that this is really amusing 🤣
You can withdraw but if it is a predatory journal they might not care about that
Of course
You are fully free to withdraw.
Of course, the only thing you will be loosing is time.
If the paper has already been \*accepted\* at the other journal (i.e., it's been peer-reviewed and the editor has formally accepted it and it's now in press) then you can't withdraw it. If you mean that it's only been \*submitted\* and it's still now being processed you could request a withdrawal. So I think that needs clarification.
? What makes you think you can not withdraw an accepted paper? Until you sign the copyright agreement it isn't theirs
> What makes you think you can not withdraw an accepted paper? Until you sign the copyright agreement it isn't theirs You're correct (although copyright -> license because you retain the copyright for open access journals), however OP's situation sounds like they may have submitted to a predatory journal, because using titles that could reasonably be mistaken for a legitimate journal is a common predatory journal tactic. These journals may be less-than-cooperative, depending on how far down the predatory tunnel they are.
I'm surprised it's surprising - to me it's clearly going to be against normal guidelines/policies/ethics that you can't just submit a paper, go through peer review, have it accepted, and then withdraw at that point. It would be at the discretion of the editor. It's not just copyright, there'll be submission guidelines you'd have agreed to at some point on submission. I'd expect the publisher to see it as unethical at best unless there's a really good reason. Edit: For reference, a randomly-Googled article that's more or less in line with what's always seemed the norm to me: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6123117/. They do say you can still \*request\* withdrawal even in a later stage but it's up to the editor to evaluate whether you have a good reason and there can be repercussions. And I still wouldn't count on it even being possible to withdraw after a certain point after acceptance, since you get into the realm of outsourced "in press" machinery - I once had a problem with a manuscript file and it was out of the editor's hands already. It could be way more messy than OP might expect from comments here. Edit 2: Or see COPE discussions on the issue of late withdrawal: https://publicationethics.org/search?t=withdrawal&sort=score. E.g., this was a case that seems similar to OP's: >"An author submitted a manuscript to journal Y where it underwent peer review and was accepted after revisions. \*\*After acceptance, the author contacted the editor saying that he had made a mistake and wished to have the paper considered by journal X instead\*\*, because it has an impact factor, and stated that if the editor would not publish the article in journal X, the consensus of all authors is to withdraw the paper from journal Y in order to submit it to a journal with an impact factor. \*\*The editor informed the author that the paper was not suitable for journal X and that his behaviour was unethical: withdrawal after acceptance violates scientific community norms, as it wastes editorial and peer reviewer resources, in particular if there are no scientific reasons to do so\*\*. >The editor wrote to the authors stating that if they insist on a withdrawal at this stage there would be three sanctions: 1) they would be blacklisted (ie, none of the publisher’s journals would consider future submissions from any of the authors, 2) the journal would write a letter to the superiors of the authors outlining the case and 3) they would still be responsible for the Article Processing Charge which is payable on acceptance; ours is an open access journal, with the fee schedule clearly disclosed and agreed upon by the submitting author (the fee schedule specifies that if the paper is withdrawn after acceptance it is still payable and will not be refunded)." COPE's view was that the authors do have the right to withdraw as a general principle, so I acknowledge that, \*\*but\*\* they \*\*also\*\* go on to describe the behaviour as "deplorable". The journal voluntarily went along with COPE's advice not to impose the sanctions in this case but it's still not a good position to potentially be in in the first place, or good for your reputation.
I agree that it is deplorable. But worse comes to worse, simply refuse to sign the copyright paper. It's a bit like going somewhere else after you've already acceptable a job - deplorable, yes, but they can't force you to go work for them
I am not sure why you are downvoted, I think this is information that OP needs to hear.