The Philosophers' Cocoon

Particularly good philosophy conferences?

In most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

There is plenty of information about good philosophy journals, including Leiter's rankings. But I'm curious to know what people think about philosophy conferences.

So my question is: which philosophy conferences do you consider good? The evaluation could be based on prestige, quality of feedback, etc. They can also be either "generalist" or "specialist".

For example, I expect the Joint Session and the APA Meetings to be good "generalist" conferences, and Euro X-Phi to be a good "specialist" conference in experimental philosophy.

What do readers think?

Mismatches between inner life and outward demeanor?

In most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

[T]his is a rather unusual question. It's a question about usual psychology people have, but first, a bit of explanation. Somehow what I show on the outside often differs from how I feel from inside (not deliberately!). For example, when I speak calmly and relaxed in a talk, there is a good chance that I feel panic inside (at least initially), and when I sound nervous, there is a good chance that I actually feel very confident inside (at least initially). Also, I can come off sweet when I talk to people I don't like, but come off mean or harsh when it's someone I respect. These are just some examples. I wonder if other people have any unusual psychologies related to the profession. I am not trying to be nosy. But I am a bit tired/sad of only seeing the "masks" and not the interiors, given how different my own "masks" differ from the interior. (I didn't talk about this with colleagues because it might sound too bizarre and off putting.)

This is a really interesting query. I discovered something similar about myself through my dissertation advisor, who at one point pointed out something about my demeanor that didn't at all match my inner experience (N.B., I tend to frown when thinking and talking through complex things). I was thankful for the tip, and I've always tried to be mindful of it so that I don't rub people the wrong way.

Anyway, I totally empathize with the OP's thought that having to put on "masks" sort of sucks, which is why frankly sometimes I try harder than others. But at the same time, unless one wants to be like Wittgenstein and have basically no "filter" (which I know some people choose, but can give rise to interpersonal problems), one sort of has to pick and choose how to "put one's best foot forward" with people.

Do any other readers have examples to share?

When to consider editing a special issue?

In most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

When should I consider editing a special issue for a journal? It would be on a topic that I work on. Do only well-established, senior people do these, or can junior scholars also edit special issues? Is there any reason to do it before or after tenure?

Not sure. There are some obvious reasons to wait until after tenure: editing a special issue is presumably a time-consuming matter, and I'm assuming it best counts as "service" rather than research. But, as I've often heard, no gets tenure for service. The things that tend to matter most for tenure are research and teaching. So, all things being equal, it probably makes sense to focus on those things. Then again, maybe not everything is equal for the OP. If they've published plenty and have a good teaching record, then maybe it could make sense before tenure. Which is a long way of saying: I suspect the answers to the OP's questions depend a lot on the case--what kind of job the person is in, how good of a case they may have for tenure already, etc.

What do readers think?

How to list publications in conference volumes?

In most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

In a recent post, it sounded like people were thinking that publications in conference volumes, where everyone who participated in the conference receives a block invitation to submit their paper for review, are functionally identical to invited publications. Is this true? Should publications in conference proceedings or books compiled from a conference be treated like invited publications on a CV, where you may sometimes want to indicate that they are invited? (Is this an example of academic "over-thinking" it?)

Good question, and I'm not sure--though I suspect there may be some overthinking here. In the case the OP describes, everyone who participates in the conference volume receives an invitation to submit a paper for review. But, presumably they already submitted something for the conference and had it accepted there. So, if the paper goes through further review after the conference (especially if the review process is legitimate and papers can be and are rejected), then it's not entirely clear to me how it is an "invited" publication (as opposed to simply a peer-reviewed article). 

What do readers think?

Teaching/adjuncting at "low-ranked" colleges?

In most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I know hiring committees do not look favorably upon publications in low quality journals, but is the same true for teaching/adjuncting experience at low ranking colleges? I currently have no teaching experience and my department lost my TA teaching evaluations. My postdoc in an interdisciplinary center has been purely research based, so I'm inclined to think some outside evidence of teaching abilities in philosophy would be better than having none at all but I'm not sure.

One quick note: the idea that hiring committees in general don't look favorably upon publications in "low quality" journals appears to be false. I suspect there may be some truth to that for jobs at top-ranked R1s, but my own experience has been that at other types of universities, people can care relatively little about journal rankings. But in any case, with respect to teaching experience, my sense is that the important thing is that you have it. If you've only been a TA and haven't taught courses independently, chances are you'll be at a serious disadvantage on the market for many (and perhaps most) jobs. Moreover, the broader variety of courses you've taught, the greater the chances that you'll have experience teaching subjects that a committee needs taught at their school. But these are just my thoughts.

What do readers think?

Internal hires without "posting" jobs?

In most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

How do internal hires work in the U.S.? I've noticed some people starting jobs at universities without the positions being posted (at least to my knowledge).

Hmm...I was of the understanding that jobs need to be posted for legal reasons (presumably to satisfy EEOC requirements). However, I'm not a legal or HR expert, so I'm mostly speculating and don't know how far those requirements extend. Is posting the position on the university's job page enough? Or, do universities need to post job ads more widely? If the former is the case, that might explain the OP's observation. But again, I'm not sure.

Do any readers have any helpful insights to share?

Suspecting a reviewer of idea theft?

In most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I submitted a short paper built around a distinction that, as far as I know, hasn't been made, at least in the language I used. It recently got rejected, and the referee report was *very* rude -- i.e., the kind of stuff you would never say to someone if it weren't anonymous, even if you thought the paper was really bad. I haven't gotten a rejection that venomous before, so I spent more time than usual obsessing over who might have written it. Given the things they cited and the style they used, I got a hunch it was Philosopher X. Then I looked at Philosopher X's website, and found an abstract for an in-progress paper -- about my distinction, using the language I used to make the distinction, but without citing me. (Not that I would expect to be cited, because I have not publicly posted the draft anywhere.) Using the wayback machine, I found that the abstract was recently uploaded -- there's no trace that this philosopher said anything about this distinction, using that language, before I submitted my paper.

Also, Philosopher X is super high-profile, and I'm an ABD grad student. We've crossed paths at conferences a couple of times and know some of the same people.

Given that, two questions...
-How likely is it that this is just a coincidence? Maybe the kinds of unconscious processes that led me to have my idea and use the language I did to express it also led Philosopher X to do the same -- given that we're talking to some of the same people, reading the same stuff, etc. Plus, there's really no practical pressure for them to take a random grad student's ideas -- their career is set. And, you would naively hope, the fact that they're writing a paper about the same idea would show that they're not the same referee who thinks that the idea is so stupid that they have to be 10/10 rude in their rejection of it.

-No judgment (this is all anonymous anyway!): has anyone ever used an idea from a paper they rejected? I assume this is not a very common practice, which is part of what makes this feel uncommonly galling. But I haven't refereed a lot of papers; maybe others think this is more normal. It is, of course, possible to like an idea in a paper that you think shouldn't be published, maybe it gives you a nearby idea, maybe you think you shouldn't be barred from publishing this nearby idea until the original paper comes out. (After all, if you think the paper is extremely bad, maybe you think it will never come out!) Not to excuse the behavior -- just trying to think of what might lead someone to do this. Anyway, what are the norms here?

Although it's possible it could be coincidence, this certainly looks suspicious to me. As for what the OP should do, if anything (though they didn't ask), I'm not sure. I know other people who have suspected others in the profession of lifting ideas, and I've even had some suspicious things happen to me--but I never did anything, as trying to do anything seemed to me like it would be more of a headache (and potentially career self-sabotaging thing to do) than to simply go on with my career doing the best work I could. Regardless, it does seem to me to be clearly wrong to use an idea from a paper one reviews for a journal.

What do readers think?

Will AI ruin the peer-review process?

In most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Do people think AI is going to undermine the peer-review process? It's only a matter of time, I think, before AI reliably recognizes people's writing. I suppose journals could always run reviews through an AI editor to anonymize them, but I don't like the idea of running manuscripts themselves through them.

Good question. I imagine there are multiple ways that AI could ruin peer-review, this just being one of them. 

What do readers think? And what, if anything, can be done to prevent/mitigate it?

Do journals prioritize some submissions?

In most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I'm writing with a sincere question, one that I hope does not sound too paranoid. (Given my situation, I'm quite happy to have my impression corrected!)

Over a year ago, I submitted a paper to a top-ranked journal known for its quick turnaround time (less than a month for a first decision). After receiving no updates about my submission, I reached out six months later. Nothing. After reaching out again two months later (so, eight months after the initial submission), I received a response. The editors apologized for the delay and their response indicated that they had two referee invitations out. I was surprised and disappointed to learn that that was all that had happened in eight months, but oh well, that's academic publishing! Then, four months later, after not finding any clear update in the submission portal, I reached out again. I was told at that point that one referee report had been secured, but that they were still attempting to find a second referee. From the submission portal, I gather that they located a second referee under a month ago. It's been 14 months since my initial submission.

Of course, I've found this frustrating, but I've tried to be patient and understanding, as I know that everyone is overworked, and understand the amount of time and labor that goes into editing and refereeing. (I have two referee reports due currently, so I know this firsthand!)

In any case, here's the thing that bothers me. I have a friend who submitted a paper to this same journal long after I did. Their paper seems to have been reviewed promptly and was published in that journal months ago. That friend is at a Leiter-ranked R1 with a PhD program and graduated from a top PhD program in philosophy; I am at a large public teaching institution with no graduate program and graduated from an unranked PhD program. Although I have no idea how my paper stacks up--I'm bad at getting a sense of this stuff when it comes to my own work, and anyway think it's not always possible to stack papers up against one another--I worry that my submission has been de-prioritized somehow. And I worry that it's because of my relative lack of prestige (a lack of institutional prestige and PhD-granted institution prestige).

Does this sort of thing happen? (I should probably mention that I've successfully published in highly ranked journals before.)

I don't have any inside insight, but I guess I doubt it's likely there's anything untoward going on here. My sense from looking at crowdsourced sites where users report turnaround times is simply that there's a lot of variance on how quickly the same journal reviews pieces. Maybe this is due to difficulty in finding willing referees, or alternatively, from some associate editors simply being far more efficient and conscientious than others (they're the ones who solicit reviewers, right?). 

What do readers think? 

Journals with quick turnaround times?

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

I'm wondering if there is a list somewhere with journals known for a relatively quick review and decision process (lower-tier journals also if indexed). Alternatively, I am wondering if anyone could share relevant anecdotes mentioning the journals, providing alternatives to horror story journals. This could be very useful for people pressed for time (on the job market or trying to meet tenure/promotion/grant funding requirements in time).

Good query! There's this crowdsourced table, which I've always found useful--but I don't know how accurate or updated it is. My sense is that things can and do change at various journals, with some once known for quick turnaround times slowing down, and vice versa. So I think it could be good to hear from readers about their recent experiences.

Which journals have you had good review times and decision processes with? Please note that the OP didn't just ask about top-ranked journals; they are interested in "lower-tier" journals too!

Disciplinary norms for forthcoming vs. published work in promotion reviews?

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

I wondering whether someone can shed light on this question: is it consistent with standard disciplinary norms in philosophy to count an article in a current promotion file as a publication, if it was previously listed as forthcoming - but not counted as a publication - in an earlier promotion review.

To provide some context, at the time of my promotion to associate professor a few years ago, I had a peer-reviewed article that had been accepted and forthcoming but not yet published. Because it wasn’t in print, I did not count it as a publication, consistent with standard practices and disciplinary norms; instead, I listed it under a separate section of my promotion portfolio - “evidence of ongoing scholarship” - as advised. The article was published three months after my promotion to associate professor.

Now, as I prepare my portfolio for promotion to full professor, I would obviously like to include this article in my record of published research. However, I wish to proceed in my promotion process with an abundance of caution and integrity.

My question is: is it consistent with standard disciplinary norms in philosophy to count this article as a publication for my current promotion file, given that it was listed as forthcoming (but not counted as a publication) in my prior promotion file?

I would assume that this is the case, but neither my department’s RTP guidelines nor the university contract address this question directly.

To be clear: I’m merely seeking clarification on whether a disciplinary norm exists for these situations. Thanks for any and all input and/or references.

I have no idea whether there's a disciplinary norm here. However, given that the OP explicitly listed the work as "ongoing scholarship" in their earlier promotion file and the work really was published only after they were an associate, it seems to me that they are probably fine counting it now. One potential issue, though, is that I would have thought the standing disciplinary norm is to list "forthcoming" under published works in a CV rather than "ongoing scholarship" since it was already accepted. Another thing I've always found a bit confusing is when pieces are "published online" (viz. Online First) but not yet assigned to a journal issue. But it's not clear that's an issue here in the OP's case.

What do readers think?

Changes to ethics journals landscape/rankings?

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

It seems like the top ethics journal landscape is a bit different than it was the last time Leiter did a poll – JPP became (?) Political Philosophy, PPA is Free & Equal but then there’s the Wiley PPA with new editors. Is Ethics the best, then these old/new ones lumped together in a tier below it? Anything to say about which seems better than the others?

Good questions--these changes seem significant and I haven't seen any discussion of what people make of the new landscape.

Any specialists in ethics and/or political philosophy willing to weigh in?

Journal rankings in philosophy of religion?

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

I saw a few discussions here and in other blogs about journal rankings, but only very little about rankings of journals that specialize in philosophy of religion. I would appreciate if people could share their insights as to how they think the different journals are viewed in the field, and what other differences there are between the journals.

Any readers in philosophy of religion willing to weigh in? 

Does a "W" on a transcript look bad on the market?

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

I had to withdraw from a class due to personal reasons. I am going on the job market next term—does one 'W' look bad on a transcript to job committee members or is this only a problem if there is more than one?

My experience is that most job applications (in America, at least) don't require transcripts, and of those that do, it's probably unlikely that committee members will spend much (if any) time looking at them. Having served on many search committees, my overwhelming sense is that you're not be hired (or interviewed) on the basis of your performance in grad coursework. Rather, what matters is whether you've published, how good your dissertation work is, what your teaching record and pedagogy look like, etc. Finally, even if committees do look at transcripts, I doubt one 'W' would mean much--though if you had more, then perhaps committees might notice, or it might be indicative of issues with finishing work that could lead your letter writers to write less than glowing recommendations.

But these are just my thoughts. What do other readers think?

How do you keep up philosophically (and in your subfield)?

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

I'm curious how people keep up with their subfields and with philosophy in general.

I personally check out anything new uploaded to PhilPapers under the problem of evil category, and I go through the titles of all the articles when there's a new issue in Faith and Philosophy, Religious Studies, Int. Journal for PoR, or Sophia, looking for anything interesting.

I'd appreciate if other people can share what they do. I'm especially curious if there are people who go through all the titles in generalist journals from the bottom half of Leiter's top 20 and outside of it. Lately I wondered if articles in those journals have a chance of being discovered and read simply by being published in those journals, without external sources like PhilPapers or citations pointing potential readers towards them.

Good query! It's been a bit more difficult to do consistently since the birth of my daughter, but in general I try to check PhilPapers' rolling list of recent works on a regular basis, see what looks interesting, and save things that look interesting in folders in my computer (sorted by area). This has always seemed to me like a good way to go given that PhilPapers is the largest repository for philosophical material. But I'm curious what other people do.

Any other readers care to weigh in?