The Philosophers' Cocoon

A guide for academic self-promotion on Twitter and other fora

This is an expanded version of a thread I did recently on self-promotion. Many academics find the concept of self-promotion on social media somewhat icky, but it is often necessary, especially for junior academics. I find self-promotion by others very useful because it gives me the opportunity to learn new things from them, especially outside of the fields I am working on. 

 

While it's possible to be obnoxious in self-promotion (a topic for another time, perhaps) I think many people err on the side of under-promoting their own work. Here is a list of what I deem best practices, by which I mean, practices that are most helpful for the recipient. Since attention is a limited resource, these practices help the recipient to more efficiently decide: is this something I could be interested in? Writing from the perspective of the recipient, I do not intend to speak for everyone but it's a datapoint you can consider. 

1. Where to promote? I am a fan of Twitter. Facebook etc. is also fine though they are mostly to people who already know you. Twitter helps you to also reach new audiences and expand your network. Put in your bio your scholarly interests, maybe your bylines (recent book published, journals published in). I tend to follow back people who put something professional in their bio (e.g., "Early modern philosophy", "Chinese philosophy", "PhD student at XX"), but it's up to you. 
2. Do not hesitate to use the "pin" feature on Twitter. You can pin one link and you can change it to whatever you want your audience to find. I've found so many wonderful papers and books because people pin them! Especially something that will appeal to potentially a wider audience, you should pin. My personal sense is that a piece of public philosophy in a good venue (such as Aeon or Boston Review) is more useful to pin than a specialist academic article, because you reach journalists and people from other fields this way. Monographs are always good to pin.
3. When you link to the paper/book you wish to promote, put a brief description. I'm likely not going to click on a bald link or "My paper in [journal] just appeared," unless it's centrally in areas that interest me. Better is 1-2 sentences on what your main finding/idea is.
4. Paywalls are horrible. Many people you are in conversation with are not academics and still want to read what you have to say (e.g., alt-ac people, journalists). It's good practice to put a link to a freely available version, such as a latest draft on PhilPapers or your own website. In a second, linked tweet, you can put a link to the published version. This might matter for Altmetric and also for those people who want to see the final published version.
5. If you want to go above and beyond, you might consider a little thread (of linked tweets) summarizing the main points of your paper. I know it's effort but it is effort that pays off.  That helps viewers decide if they want to put in the effort of reading the entire paper, especially if it is not central to what they're working on.
6. If the research is in collaboration with junior colleagues, and you are senior, here's also an opportunity to lift them up. This is especially important for grad students/postdocs e.g., "lead author is [twitterhandle]--see their website for the cool stuff they're up to!"  Similarly, you can tag members of your team.
7. Attention is a zero-sum game, but it always pays to give credit generously. If you work with communities e.g., Indigenous communities, refugees etc, also important to make link to any web presence they have and amplify their voices. 
8. Worries about how often to promote yourself? While it may start to look self-aggrandizing at some point, the fact of the matter is there is so much out there, so much competition for attention, that I think it is OK to repeat-tweet something that had little uptake (don't retweet, just make a new tweet). The pin feature also gets rid of this worry.
9. I like to tweet works by others I find interesting. While this seems like it competes with self-promotion it makes your profile a more interesting place to spend time with. What I've seen some people do (but I don't have the discipline for that) make a challenge of reading/tweeting a new paper every day for a set period of time. It is also just nice to help to amplify work you find valuable, also work you had no hand in creating.
10. When to tweet your new publication? To me it seems fine to pick the following moments: when the paper is accepted (note, I like to play safe and not when still minor revisions are pending, YMMV) you could write "my paper [title] just got accepted in [journal]. If you like a copy, DM me". Once it appears you tweet a link to the paper and your own archived copy (see above). You could even be cheeky and reamplify once it gets assigned an issue. 

There's a lot competing for our attention--while there's only so much research people read in a day it's important to reach the widest potential audience. We benefit from reading widely, especially outside of our normal areas.

 

Good synergy happens.  So don't feel shy to self-promote. 

Reflecting on the Job Market Journey

Several weeks ago, I learned that my most recent job search yielded what should be a long-term position. In the upcoming fall, I’ll be joining the University of Arizona as a member of both its philosophy department and the W. A. Franke Honors College as an Assistant Professor of Practice. While the position is not tenure eligible, it carries the same promotional ranks as a “standard” Assistant Professor position and operates on long-term contracts. My hope and expectation is that the University of Arizona will be my home for the foreseeable future. (Prepping for this transition is part of why I've been preoccupied the last few weeks and have not posted anything in that time.)

The post-COVID job market was not favorable, even by the appallingly low standards of the typical job search in academic philosophy. While the number of tenure-track job openings returned to near pre-COVID levels, the market seemed even more saturated with candidates than usual because the job offerings the previous year had been so meager. While I had a few interviews heading into April, none of them had yielded any tangible results. If that sounds familiar, that’s because it was eerily similar to what transpired last time. But April yielded a new cluster of interviews – a combination of visiting jobs and long-term positions. I even got invited for a campus visit midway through the month. Ultimately, I missed out on that particular job but was offered a visiting position near the end of April. In early May, just before I had to make a decision about the offer in hand, I got the news from Arizona.

I’m thrilled with how it all ended, but having reached this juncture, I have been thinking about how much it required. Here is a short encapsulation of each time I was on the job market and what the results were:

• 2016–2017: 90 applications; 4 interviews; 1 job offer
• 2017–2018: 19 applications; 1 interview; 0 job offers
• 2018–2019: 118 applications; 13 interviews; 3 job offers
• 2021–2022: 54 applications; 7 interviews; 2 job offers

You may notice that there’s a great deal of variance in the application numbers each year. My second job search was a soft search: my postdoctoral position was guaranteed for a second year, so there was no pressing need to find another job. I applied selectively to tenure-track positions for which I thought I was a good fit. My first and third searches were more strenuous endeavors where I went to far greater lengths trying to secure academic employment. The 2018–2019 search almost destroyed me, however. It was simply too time-consuming and emotionally taxing to apply for that many jobs, so on this most recent job search, I opted to be more selective. My target number of applications was 60, and when I received my first offer, I had exactly 6 jobs left in my spreadsheet that I intended to apply for.

Summer sounds

The in-person conference quandary

This June I went to my first in-person conference in over two years. It was in UMSL, which is in the town I'm currently based in (St Louis), so it was an easy transition. And it was lovely--exhausting but lovely. I also have a couple of more events lined up this fall. After a hiatus of in-person conferencing,  there's a general sense for many academics that "it's endemic now." We can't really expect improvements in vaccine effectiveness or transmission rates, so basically we have to do life under these circumstances. And academic life involves (for many of us) in-person conferences.

But I worry that this creates disparity in opportunities and professional development, exacerbating disparities that already exist in many cases, such as for disabled and chronically ill people. 

I got Covid in late April 2022 after being very cautious for over two years, and was quite sick for several weeks (sicker I thought I would be given that I got the full vaccination and a booster.) For the few weeks after recovery I reckoned I was OK in terms of immunity and went to a few events that I normally still deem to risky, such as a lovely dinner organized by the local Jesuit training center which is associated to SLU. It was a great event and the food was great, but it was also a very poorly ventilated area with so many people.

Explaining job titles in applications?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I hope I can pose a neurotic and basically trivial question. I'm a junior academic in the UK whose official job title is 'lecturer' but it is a permanent position. Is it wise or appropriate to explain on my CV or website that the position is equivalent to what is called 'assistant professor', which it is what it is called at some other UK institutions and the closest thing to the position in most of the rest of the anglophone world?

I think that virtually everyone on a hiring committee knows what a Lecturer is in the UK, so although I could be wrong, I don't think that warrants explanation in a job application. However, I am curious about job titles in other countries--for example, I know someone who was a Research Fellow in Australia, but I don't know exactly what that means, and I know that in some European countries, recent PhDs often have to complete Habilitations and hold Privatdozent positions, which sort of sound like postdocs and non-tenure track positions, but again, I'm not exactly sure! What do readers think? When (if ever) should job applicants explain their job titles in their application materials? For what kinds of positions, and why?

Dealing with unresponsive journals (again)?

In our newest "how can we help you?", a reader asks:

Here's a(nother) question about dealing with unresponsive journals:

I submitted a paper last summer (2021). It is with a good journal in my subfield and is one of my better papers. It initially received a 'revise and resubmit, no commitment to publishing' in November '21, and I resubmitted in December '21. The paper has been untouched since then (i.e., for about seven months). The editors have not responded to two emails asking whether the paper is still actively under review.

When do I pull out? At the nine-month mark? The one-year mark? I would of course like to publish with them, but continuing to wait could lead to problems for my career. Thanks in advance for any advice.

Good questions. We've discussed how to handle slow and unresponsive journals before, but the question seems to come up fairly often, so I think it's important to discuss. Personally, I think I'd send the editors one more email and pull the paper within a week or two if they don't respond. There are always other good journals out there, and if you got a revise-and-resubmit at this journal, chances are you'll get one (or perhaps even an acceptance) at another good journal. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Thanking previous referees in submissions?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I have a paper that was rejected from a journal, but with an unbelievably helpful referee report that is instrumental in rewriting the paper. How do I acknowledge this anonymous reviewer when I resubmit the paper to a new journal? Is it odd to acknowledge a reviewer from a previous journal's review process in a new submission?

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

[U]sually submissions should not include any acknowledgements, so then there's no problem. Once the paper is accepted and you add acknowledgements you can acknowledge a reviewer from a previous journal.

I respectfully disagree. When I submit papers to journals, I often include acknowledgments to anonymous referees--usually in footnotes at places in the paper that have been substantially revised due to referees' suggestions. I don't mention which journal(s) the referees were from, as I think that could introduce biases into the review process. But I tend to thank referees because I think they deserve the acknowledgment, and because I worry that if I incorporated a ton of their feedback into the paper without acknowledging them, it might irritate them (or worse) if they are asked to review the paper again for the new journal. I've also never been asked to remove these kinds of acknowledgments in an initial submission precisely because they are anonymized (though if I ever were asked to remove them, of course I would). My understanding at any rate, has always been that the reason that journals ask you to "remove acknowledgments" is to preserve anonymized review and prevent bias (which might occur, obviously, if you write things like, "I thank Derek Parfit and audiences at NYU and Princeton for their feedback").

Anyway, this is just what I do and my experience with my approach. What do you all think?

Norms for travel reimbursement in the COVID era?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

What are the current norms about COVID and travel reimbursement? For example, suppose one gets invited for an in-person talk and the host promises to pay. But due to COVID, the trip had to be cancelled, the talk had to be given online, and some travel arrangements are unrefundable. Should the host pay? Or, for example, suppose one is traveling using university money, but again the trip had to be cancelled, is it still okay to submit the unrefundable travel costs for reimbursement?

Good questions. My experience is that many universities have strict policies governing these kinds of things, such that if you don't actually travel it's against their rules to submit travel reimbursements. So, on that, I'd be careful and forthright with your university about your situation. Hopefully, they'll be understanding. In terms of invited talks, if the in-person visit is canceled, it seems to me that the host should clearly cover non-refundable costs. But these are just my thoughts and experiences. What are yours?

Contributing to journal special issues?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Are journal special issues worth anything?

I have just seen a call for papers for a special issue of a journal. I have a paper in preparation that would fit exactly into this special issue. However, the journal is somewhat lower ranked than I would optimally hope to publish in (I know journal rankings are probably mostly bullshit, but I need a job).

So, is there any advantage to publishing in a special issue? And is this advantage big enough to accept say a 10 ranking drop in journal ranking?

These are good questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think where you place your paper really matters. People read and cite my work that is published in Philosophy of Science and Synthese more than they read and cite my work published in more obscure journals. Further, journal ranking matters because it is one "short cut" people use in deciding which of the many new papers in their area they should read.

This seems to me a common view, but I'm not so sure about it. Some of my most-cited pieces are in relatively obscure journals. Also, it may be worth considering what the special issue as a whole looks like. For example, I was recently invited to contribute to a special issue in a journal that I hadn't heard of before, but it was an attractive invitation not only because I had a piece that I really wanted to write on the topic, but also because the special issue editor and other contributors are excellent, well-known philosophers. So, even though it's a journal that I hadn't heard of, I expect it will probably get read by people interested in the topic. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Importing commentator feedback into a paper?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I am wondering what the proper thing to do is in the following situation. A person was assigned as a commentator on my paper at a conference, and in their comments they summarized the main argument of my paper in premise form. The form was implicit in my argument, but now that I am revising the paper, I would like to include the argument in premise form. What is the right thing to do around using either their summary, or maybe a slightly altered version. Should I state in a footnote something like 'thanks to x for suggesting the following formulation'? Should I do that even if I change it somewhat? Or should I just thank them at the end in the acknowledgements and in the places where they suggested a given objection to a part of my argument (I will do both of these either way, of course)? The main thing that is confusing me is that the argument was there already in the original, and so a thing of my making, but not explicitly in premise form, and so a thing of their making. But then if I had gone through the trouble of making it more explicit, then I would have likely arrived at something very similar to their end product. So, what to do?

This is an excellent question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think it would be nice to thank x for specifically that. Maybe at the argument, add a footnote like "this argument was explicitly formulated first in x's helpful comments." This does not imply that you wouldn't be able to formulate yourself.

I think things are a bit more complicated than this. Even though the argument the commentator placed into premise-conclusion is of your making, the particular formulation of it in premise-conclusion form is (as the OP notes) of their making. So, I think simply taking it and importing it into the paper, even with minor alterations and an acknowledgment, may be a bit dicey. Personally, I think the safe thing to do here would be to simply email the commentator to ask them whether they are okay with you using it, noting that you would of course acknowledge them in the paper for suggesting it. This not only seems to me to be called for as a matter of professional courtesy. You also never know: perhaps if you don't ask, the person could get upset and lodge some kind of research misconduct (e.g. plagiarism) allegation. This may seem unlikely (and unreasonable), but why chance it when you can just ask them instead before going forward?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

 

New paper in Social Theory and Practice: 'Educational Justice and School Boosting'

This is just a quick note that I have a new paper forthcoming in Social Theory and Practice, "Educational Justice and School Boosting." Here's the abstract:

School boosters are tax-exempt organizations that engage in fundraising efforts to provide public schools with supplementary resources. This paper argues that prevailing forms of school boosting are defeasibly unjust. Section 1 shows that inequalities in public education funding in the United States violate John Rawls’s two principles of domestic justice. Section 2 argues that prevailing forms of school boosting exacerbate and plausibly perpetuate these injustices. Section 3 then contends that boosting thereby defeasibly violates Rawlsian principles of nonideal theory for rectifying injustice. Thus, boosting should be presumptively either made illegal or substantially reformed. Finally, Section 4 responds to potential objections.

Deciding whether to review a paper?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an early grad student writes:

I'm wondering how to decide whether to referee a paper. I just got my first request, and from what I can gather from the abstract, this doesn't seem like an editorial call I'm particularly qualified to make. Would appreciate any thoughts.

This is a great query. Another reader (an editor) submitted the following reply:

Do not agree to referee a paper you believe you are not qualified to referee. Referees are to give their expert opinion - if you are not an expert, then your opinion is irrelevant.

I think this seems right as far as it goes (if a bit blunt!), but I'm curious whether we might be able to give the OP more helpful positive advice. How do you decide whether to review a paper? 

How often to meet with committee members?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a grad student writes:

I don’t meet a lot with my committee members and they’re quite hands-off but I know some people that meet theirs very regularly. I feel like I’m falling behind a lot, and I want to meet them more but I’m slow at putting out work to show them. So I’m wondering how often did you meet with your supervisor and other committee members, and how often do those on committees want us to meet?

This is an excellent question, and I'm curious what readers' answers are. Although it's obviously been a while since I've been in grad school, my sense is that one of the most serious and common errors that grad students make is to avoid meeting consistently enough with their committee members, or at least with their dissertation supervisor. Let me explain.

Thanking too many people in a paper?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a postdoc asks:

Perhaps this is a silly or trivial question, but I've been wondering about it since a thread came up a few weeks ago. My practice has always been to basically acknowledge anyone who gave me feedback on a paper, even if it was just a brief conversation that gave me something to think about. For that reason my acknowledgements section in my papers is usually pretty long—now that I think about it, probably considerably longer than most papers I read. I always included everyone just since on the other side, it always gives me a nice feeling to see my name in an acknowledgements section and I assumed it was costless for me to just include people. But it occurred to me that perhaps not only is this not the done thing, but maybe it makes it look like my papers are more 'crowdsourced' than they are, which isn't a good look.

This may not be a huge issue, but still, I think it's worth discussing, as readers may recall that we discussed paper acknowledgments about a month ago. In response, a UK postdoc submitted the following comment:

To be honest, I doubt that anyone will try to draw any conclusions about your paper from the acknowledgements section. They could just as well conclude the opposite: that you are well-connected, that many people are interested in your work, or indeed that you are very generous with your gratitude!

What do you all think?

How do you work during summer?

It's been a while since I've asked the Cocoon a question of my own, but I've been struggling a bit with what my summer work schedule and routine should look like, so here goes: how do you work during summer breaks from teaching? For example, how many hours would you say that you spend on average per day working? How does your typical summer work day break down (in terms of reading, writing, etc.)? How many days per week do you work? And how much time do you take off during summer "for vacation" (or rest and relaxation)? In addition to hearing your answers, it might be great to hear what stage of your career you are in and what kind of institution you are at!