The Philosophers' Cocoon

Asking editors to exclude particular reviewers?

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

I think my papers keep getting sent to, and rejected by, a few senior philosophers from my discipline who don't have a high opinion of my work (not entirely for scholarly reasons, I suspect).

How usual/acceptable is it to ask editors at a journal to exclude one/set-of philosophers from reviewing your article? Would it put the article at a disadvantage?

Interesting questions. I know that a few journals explicitly ask authors to recommend reviewers as well as reviewers the author would like to avoid. I've submitted to a few journals like these over the years, and they tend to require some explanation by the author. But what about journals that don't have this feature? Most journals, in my experience, have a "comments to editor" box where you can write a short cover letter to the editor(s) upon submission. So, I suppose if you were a submitting author, you could mention something to the effect of what the OP mentions above.

But is this at all appropriate? How would editors respond? I'm not sure. I guess if the OP sincerely thinks certain people are rejecting their work "not entirely for scholarly reasons" (such as personal or political reasons), then they could mention such potential conflicts of interest in their cover letter. But again, I'm not sure how advisable this is. 

Anyone have any helpful insights here? It would be great to hear from authors, but obviously, it would be very helpful to hear from journal editors.

Tips for applying to full-time NTT "teaching positions"?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, NTT Aspirant writes:

I love teaching philosophy, but I'm not too fired up about going on the job market in search of a TT job. Where I'm getting my PhD, we have "Lecturers" (pure adjuncts) and "Instructors," who have longer-term contracts and get somewhat better pay. Instructors are NTT and have no research expectations; they are on the faculty, though, and I believe they have service duties. Does anyone have a sense of how common this intermediate category is across the board? I get the sense that some large departments have folks in this category, and some don't. Also, any tips on getting such a job, besides general advice for applying to any teaching-focused position?

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks. My sense is that an increasing number of colleges and universities do indeed have these types of renewable full-time, non-TT positions. In fact, my university is one of them.

Here's a bit of context: for a number of years, members of our Faculty Senate pushed for the creation of more full-time positions, out of concern about reliance on adjunct labor. Then, a handful of years ago, they finally passed a resolution to create these types of positions--with the support of the university's administration. While the change has by no means eliminated reliance on adjunct labor, it has significantly reduced it (cutting my department's reliance on adjuncts by close to 30%). And my sense is that these changes are becoming more common at other colleges and universities too, as over the past several years I've seen what appear to be far more jobs like "Teaching Assistant Professors" on PhilJobs.

The reasons why these positions are becoming more common are, I think, complex and not without costs (viz. potentially shifting the overall balance of full-time TT vs. non-TT positions)--but, on the whole, I think it is good that more full-time academic jobs with benefits and prospects for relatively secure employment are being created, as the adjunctification of higher education is an ongoing moral scandal that should be fought in whatever ways are available.

Do other readers share my sense of these matters, and/or have any tips for the OP on how to successfully apply for such positions? Given that my department is doing a search for one of these positions right now, out of fairness to applicants, I won't share any tips openly here right now (though I may share some anonymously). But I am curious to hear the inside scoop from search committee members that might help the OP!

Commuting a distance to work?

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

I was lucky to secure a tenured position a few years ago. I really like the department, and feel privileged to have a permanent position, but am unhappy about the place and really miss the place I used to live. I’ve tried to come to terms with the new place for two years, but it’s clear to me that this is not gonna happen.

I’m considering approaching the head of dept and ask whether commuting would be okay, but worry that this might backfire. My department does not look favorably at commuting, since they worry that faculty will only show up for their teaching and not contribute to the departmental life. I also don’t have a partner, children or any other "formal" reason that would effectively explain my commute to colleges. I just feel miserable. It’s obviously a personal concern, so I am not sure how (or whether) to ask the head of dept about this.

It's not exactly clear how far the OP is thinking of commuting (it might be helpful to know!), but I take it that it would be a serious distance such that they might be poorly positioned to take part in many departmental or university functions above and beyond teaching. Bearing this in mind, another reader submitted the following reply:

First, you can do what you want, within the law. So commute if that is what you want and need. The idea that you would check this with your department is crazy. Second, I would resent having a colleague commuting. I worked in a small department where two colleagues commuted, and I was expected to do all sorts of inconvenient service work because I lived locally. There was no recognition of this, and no compensation. So expect your colleagues to resent you.

For the most part, I think this response is probably right--though I suppose that if one were to (say) move to a different state and fly in once a week just to teach, then (potential legal issues aside) it might be a bad idea not to tell anybody (as hiding something like this might be reasonably considered disrespectful by others).

What does everyone else think? It would be good to hear, in particular, from other people who have commuted to work or had faculty in their department do so. How did it go? Did it work out okay, or give rise to serious problems?

Teaching in the era of ChatGPT?

Like many of us, I saw the news the other day that the newest natural language AI models, such as ChatGPT, are increasingly able to create grammatical and sophisticated responses to a wide variety of prompts. And, in fact, the other night a family member showed me an example in real time: a believable four-paragraph essay composed in just seconds.

Now, of course, there is already debate about whether this means that "the college essay is dead", or whether AI still can't compose sufficiently good content to enable rampant academic cheating (at least not for good grades). But, I guess that, given what I've seen so far, I'm leaning toward the former camp. These are still relatively early days, and the pace at which AI is improving is astonishing. 

So, what does this mean for us as instructors? I have to confess that I've already given some thought to giving my pedagogy a vast overhaul, perhaps moving away from at-home assignments to handwritten in-class ones. But, for all that, I'm deeply ensure what to do, or whether to pursue any dramatic changes at all. Are any readers giving thought to these matters? If so, what do you plan to do and why? Any clever ideas for new pedagogies to perhaps experiment with?

I'm also curious what these developments mean for university-level general education curricula. At many universities, general education programs increasingly focus on "high impact practices" such as writing and presentations. Will universities need to radically rethink their general education curricula and learning outcomes?

Engaging with philosophical work outside of philosophy?

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

Occasionally, I found other disciplines like animal studies or nursing or jurisprudence also discuss some very general philosophical questions like "what is conceptual analysis". And they do refer to lots of philosophers' work in their papers. My question is whether discussing these works by non-philosophers (not just referring but devoting two or even more paragraphs to discussing their views, putting them on a par with other prominent philosophers) is proper. From time to time, I found some interesting views from their works or their works offer a clearer and more careful literature review.

Another reader responded:

I sure hope it's acceptable to discuss works by "non-philosophers." Why wouldn't it be? Even if we accept the sanctity of disciplinary boundaries (which I think is a mistake), it does not seem justified to limit who's views you discuss based solely on which academic hat they wear. I work in philosophy of science and I hope (*hope*, mind you) that scientists at least occasionally read and take up my work as they have taken up the work of other philosophers of science. I often use a specific scientist's professed views as a foil to philosopher's, and this has allowed me to give a richer exposition of potential viewpoints/arguments/etc than would have been available had I only focused on philosophers. Maybe philosophy of science is somewhat unique in this regard as we are often debating and engaging with the work of historians of science, HPSers, and STS folks. But I'd argue that other sub-disciplines of philosophy should also consider viewpoints and arguments from other disciplines (if this don't do this already -- someone from another sub-discipline of philosophy would know better).

I'm curious to see arguments which push in the other direction. If enough academic philosophers think we should only consider/discuss other philosophers' views, then maybe there is a prudent reason to focus only on other philosophers' views. However, this way of thinking has it's own problems...

I too am curious whether there are other arguments that point in the other direction. I routinely engage with work in other disciplines, and am inclined to think that philosophy is better for it when we do--though I do wonder whether some philosophers might hold it against you in publishing. Some moral philosophers, for example, are pretty adamant that they think empirical work is irrelevant to normative and metaethics. But, I don't think this is any reason not to engage with other disciplines. If you think it's relevant and interesting, I say: engage away!

New post and features at 'New Work in Philosophy'

This is just a quick note that New Work in Philosophy has a new post up today by Berislav Marušić (University of Edinburgh). Do check it out!

Also, thanks to some helpful feedback that we received on NWP's launch yesterday, we have rolled out a new feature and point of emphasis:

1. In addition to posting contributions by authors on their own work and the work of others (e.g. book/article reviews), we encourage submissions by established (or somewhat established) philosophers that discuss/recommend new work by less/un-established philosophers who aren’t their colleagues or students. We also continue to encourage posts by or about the work of junior philosophers and underrepresented groups in the profession more generally.

2. We encourage readers to draw our attention to other Substack pages with professional philosophical content. Substack has a nifty “recommend” feature, so we will now feature an “Other Philosophy Substacks” button on this site’s top navigation bar. Recommendations will also go out to subscribers in a Substack Recommendation Digest (which can be unsubscribed from if you only want to receive notifications of original NWP posts).

Both new policies are intended to advance NWP’s aim of being an anti-elitist forum that highlights exciting new work by diverse philosophers at a wide variety of institutions, career stages, and employment situations.

So, if you'd like to pitch a piece about your own work, work by someone else that you would like to recommend or discuss, or another philosophy Substack, just let me know!

"Pay me for my expertise"--on the issue of honoraria for talks by academics

Every few years (months?) discussion surfaces on what a "fair" remuneration is for academics who give a talk. For instance, today on Twitter Jennifer van Alstyne argued that PhD holders should charge a minimum of $3500 for a one-hour talk. This struck many as unrealistic. Very few academics other than, say, Yuval Harari, will be able to command large honoraria. Many very stellar folk are willing to come and talk for a modest honorarium. 

In defense of the claim that our speaking fees should be higher than they are we often see a variation of the justice argument: van Alstyne writes, "PhDs have varied salaries. Only a small % of professors are tenured. Do you think an adjunct professor should be happy with their 'salary'? That they don't deserve to be paid for a speaking engagement? That's wild to me. All professors deserve to be paid for their expertise." 

We also often see the time compensation argument: $3500 is not as excessive as it first appears if we see the speaking engagement as a whole in terms of specialized academic labor.  A one-hour talk involves a lot more work than just one hour. I estimate (fairly accurately, as I have kept time diaries in the past)  if I write a talk from scratch and it is on a new topic it takes me about 10-14 hours to do so (I am not counting the amount of prep reading as this is usually preceding the talk, as it usually relates to things I'm working on). There is the inconvenience of travel. Moreover, you will also socialize, sometimes talk to the grad students (in colloquium talks), go to dinner after etc (this is usually pleasant and not a chore, but still part of the professional broader time commitment of giving a talk).

Finally, there is the argument of proper remuneration for expertise by minorities. Oftentimes, minorities such as Indigenous, Black, trans, and disabled scholars are expected to give free advice and free consulting. This is unjust. It is only normal and proper we should be properly compensated for our labor.

Ultimately, I think those three arguments do not work.

Introducing 'New Work in Philosophy: A multimedia newsletter'

I am excited to announce that Barry Maguire (University of Edinburgh) and I launched a Substack newsletter today, New Work in Philosophy.

The site aims to improve the dissemination and discussion of new published work in the field by featuring short, accessible posts (blog posts, short videos, prezi presentations, argument maps, etc.) about new books and articles in philosophy. The site also encourages professional discussion of posts modeled on a conference Q&A period (for the site's unique commenting and moderation policy, see here).

While we have commissioned a series of posts to launch the site, our aim is for the site to be an anti-elitist institution. We welcome unsolicited submissions from any professional philosopher (PhD students or beyond) or anyone who has previously published or presented philosophy in legitimate peer-reviewed venues.

We also particularly encourage submissions from junior philosophers and underrepresented groups in the profession, as well as postdocs, VAPs, and full or part-time faculty from a diverse variety of institutions.

The site's first four posts are now up:

1. An 8-minute video and lightboard presentation by Mark Schroeder (USC) on his paper, "Attributive Silencing."

2. A short blog post and 7-minute lecture by Wendy Salkin (Stanford University) on her paper "Democracy Within, Justice Without: The Duties of Informal Political Representatives" (Noûs, 2021).

3. A blog post by Sukaina Hirji (University of Pennsylvania) on her new paper, "Outrage and the Bounds of Empathy" (Philosophers Imprint, 2022).

4. A blog post by Farbod Akhlaghi (Christ's College, University of Cambridge) on his paper, "Non-Realist Cognitivism, Truthmaking, and Ontological Cheating" (Ethics, 2022).

If you would like to pitch a post, just email marvan@ut.edu or barry.maguire@ed.ac.uk. 

Your pitch could be anything: just a couple of sentences, a longer blog-style post, a video of any length, an argument map, a few powerpoint slides with commentary. Your pitch doesn't need to be an actual summary of your work. It could be a broader pitch that simply motivates the point of the paper in the larger context of a new project, or a zestier pitch that says more loosely what you hope the takeaway will be.

If you would like to subscribe to the newsletter, you can do so here, and the site's Twitter page is here if you'd like to follow. I also highly recommend downloading the Substack app from the App Store for ease of access.

Are hiring departments still doing Zoom "flyouts"?

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

Are hiring departments conducting finalist interviews face-to-face or via Zoom this year? Or, rather, are any departments conducting finalist (day+ long, short-listed candidates) interviews via Zoom?

I ask because my department is considering doing 4-5 finalist interviews via Zoom, then flying out the candidate(s) to whom we make offers. The thinking is that we can conduct more finalist interviews, with less department stress and expense, this way. Normally, we are limited to 2 on-campus interviews.

Interesting questions, and I'd be curious to hear the answers. Personally, I'm inclined to think that face-to-face on campus visits are superior for various reasons (performing over Zoom is very different than performing in person, candidates who visit campus can spend more unscripted time with students, faculty, and staff, etc.). But I can of course understand various rationales for holding finalist interviews by Zoom, including the one the OP mentions.

Anyway, I'm curious too. What are departments doing for finalists these days, and why?

Boilerplate journal rejection language?

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

Recently got desk-rejected by Ethics after waiting 4 months. The comment " I am afraid, however, that it is inappropriate for the journal." is boilerplate right?

Interesting question. I'm not sure this is boilerplate. I took a look at a couple of desk-rejects that I received from the same journal, and didn't see this kind of language. Curious to hear what others think!

Asking editors for referee clarifications?

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

I'm working on revising an R&R, but for one comment by a reviewer, I'm finding it difficult to understand exactly what the reviewer's concern is. Part of the issue is that the comment is full of typos and incomplete sentences. But that aside, my question is more general: Is it ever alright to ask the journal's managing editor to reach out to the reviewer on your behalf in order to ask the reviewer a question of clarification?

This is an interesting question, and I'm not sure what the answer is. I've never approached editors with a query like this, and wonder whether any readers have (and what editors and referees might think if approached in this way). Anyone have any helpful experiences/tips to share?

How can we help you? (December 2022)

Now that it's been almost a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new one.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

As usual, feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask away - we're here to help! 

Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post.

Holiday stressors & the job market

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

Here's one concerning holiday stressors, which is not so much a question as it is a request for the opportunity to vent and/or swap stories of frustration during this time of the year.

I am an early-career person with a large publication output and a series of decent postdoc and VAP-type jobs at good institutions, but no TT job. It turns out that, to my friends and family (nearly all of whom are non-academics), such a career profile makes me indistinguishable from someone who has spent the last many years living in the basement and playing video games.

I've just spent a mentally exhausting few days "back home" among these people for the holidays. It quickly became clear to me that they cannot parse my efforts as successful given that I'm still on the job market.

Some annoyingly ignorant questions I got include, "When do you get to start teaching your own classes?" (I've been teaching my own classes for nine years, five as a PhD student and four as an early-career non-TT prof); "Is the reason you don't have tenure because you don't publish?" (which especially smarts given how aggressive I've been with publishing my research compared to my peers), "How's life as a philosophy major?", and, perhaps most annoyingly, "How's school?" (clearly implying the inability to distinguish between being a professor and being a student). Given the stressors of the job market, etc., dealing with the alienation that follows from friends and family members who cannot see one's hard work and instead read one as a slacker who needs to "work harder" to get that job is especially mentally taxing.

In posting this, I'm not really asking for advice. The rational part of me knows that I should assess myself through the evaluation of my peers (who are experts), not laypeople who do not understand my field; that I cannot expect friends and family to understand my field; that I should remember that I don't even really understand what *they* do for a living; etc. But nevertheless, I would benefit from the opportunity to vent about this, and imagine others might be able to relate.

As someone who spent many years on the job market, I deeply empathize with the OP. Given that they did not ask for advice, I won't attempt to provide any. But, if you are a job marketeer, please do feel free to use this thread to commiserate about these issues--and if you would like to ask for some advice for how to handle these kinds of stressors, please do feel free to ask for some in the thread. As always, the Cocoon is here to help in any way that we can. 

Campus visit tips?

I've noticed on our job market reporting thread that a few hiring committees have already proceeded to invite candidates for campus visits (not many so far, but a few). Given that campus visits will increase in frequency over the coming weeks and months, and some job candidates may be doing campus visits for the very first time, I thought it might be good to run an open thread on campus visit tips.

It would be great to hear tips from past job-candidates, as well as from search committee members. Are there particular "do's and don'ts" for campus visits that you think job candidates should be aware of? Do have any helpful tips for common or unexpected situations that candidates might encounter during a visit?

Presenting papers currently under review?

In our November "how can we help you?" thread, an anonymous postdoc writes:

I've seen a few discussion here about presenting papers before they are under review. And the consensus seems to be that this is fine (as I think it should be).

However, I'm not sure you've touched on presenting papers that are currently under review.

Specifically, I am giving a talk next week on a paper that is already under review, and at a venue where I expect some of the most obvious reviewers for the paper will be attending (although it is not a particularly niche paper, so the probability the reviewers are actually there is reasonably low).

The following reasons make me think this should not be a problem: 1. I'm pretty sure I've seen people do this before. 2. If the reviewers are in the audience and haven't started reading the paper yet then this is really just an instance of pre-review presentation.

But the final reason goes rather the other way: 3. If the reviewers have started reading the paper and my presentation changes their views of the paper (either positively or negatively) then they might need to excuse themselves (or feel that they should) from review—and that would be annoying for everyone (me, the reviewers, the editors) due to the wasted time and effort all around.

So, have I made a mistake? And assuming that I will present the paper anyway (it would be difficult to change now), is it better to flag that the paper is already under review or not to mention it?

My sense is that it is fine to present papers that are under review at journals. I suppose it could "pollute the reviewer pool", as it were, particularly if the paper is on a niche topic where there aren't many reviewers for the journal to choose from. But this is a problem even before a paper is under review, as presenting at conferences or colloquia can disclose your identity to potential reviewers too. I also don't think it's a good idea to flag it to the presentation organizers or participants. But, I'm not sure. I have to confess that I've never thought about the OP's questions before myself!

What do you all think?