0

Manuscripts published or currently under review elsewhere are ineligible for submission.

Is there a better word to use instead of "ineligible"? Because ineligible seems to be usually used when referring to a person.

EDIT: I'm thinking about some possible synonyms. Is it correct to use "void" instead of "ineligible" in this context?

  • 1
    I believe that the standard phrase would use things like "will not be considered", "will not be reviewed", "will not be accepted", "are not permitted", and such. – Damkerng T. Jun 2 '15 at 5:44
  • 3
    Who says ineligible can only be used with people? I've never heard of such a rule, and I see eligible and ineligible used for inanimate objects all the time. I think your sentence is fine as it is. Void would not make sense here, but if you want an alternative you could use unacceptable. – Nate Eldredge Jun 2 '15 at 6:02
  • @NateEldredge: Thanks. What about "invalid"? – user246836 Jun 2 '15 at 6:07
  • 2
    Invalid also sounds weird to me in this context. I wouldn't use it here. – Nate Eldredge Jun 2 '15 at 6:07
1

No, ineligible is probably the best word. "Eligible" basically means "able to be chosen"; it can apply to people or to things.

Void is not a good option. It means "not having effect," like an invalid (unenforceable) contract. A published manuscript does not lose its effect. You might say that submissions of published manuscripts are void, but the manuscripts themselves are not void. They are ineligible.

0

I work with programmers and they often use 'quantifier' or 'qualifier' for inanimate things. Said that, if you feel (and surprisingly I see that in almost all examples from reputed source, 'in/eligible' is used for living things!) 'ineligible' shouldn't be use, use the word 'qualify'.

So, again, can 'qualifier' be used for non-living things? Yes, you can.

Manuscripts published or currently under review elsewhere are un/disqualified for submission

This is one of the synonyms. There could be some more.

  • Yes, but unfortunately, unqualified too is used only when referring to a person (in reputable sources). – user246836 Jun 2 '15 at 5:17
  • Not at all, in programming they have integers etc. they are referenced as quantifier, qualifiers etc. So, don't worry. For such things, it's fine. – Maulik V Jun 2 '15 at 5:19
  • "Unqualified" would mean that it's not good enough to be submitted. "disqualified" would be the word you're looking for, really. – Catija Jun 2 '15 at 7:34
  • @MaulikV Programmers using "quantifier" and "qualifier" as terms of art does not mean that one can speak of a manuscript being unqualified for submission. To my ear, unqualified means "not having adequate education, experience, or skills," and "ineligible" is a far better choice in this context than "unqualified." – phoog Jun 2 '15 at 7:51
  • 1
    Another meaning of unqualified is "not restricted or limited by conditions," which would be closer to (the opposite of) the meaning of "qualifier" used in programming, but which is clearly wrong in this context, as it is not synonymous with "ineligible". – phoog Jun 2 '15 at 7:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.