The Philosophers' Cocoon

Journal word limits: "notes and references"

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

This seems like it should be an easy question to answer, but I've had a surprisingly hard time figuring it out. If a journal says submissions should be no longer than 10,000 words, including notes and references, do the "references" here mean in-text references, or the actual reference/bibliography list at the end of the article? It would seem that including the full reference list in the word count would encourage under-citing, which is a problem. The particular journal I have in mind is Mind & Language, which makes this even weirder, since empirical-adjacent journals tend to have papers with more citations.

It means everything, bibliography included--and yes, it may encourage under-citing. Should journals rethink this kind of requirement, so as to omit bibliographies from word limits?

What do readers think?

Presenting a paper: how many times is too many?

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

How many times is it normal to present the same paper at conferences/workshops? There are several talks that I have presented twice--both in order to get additional feedback and to network at conferences--and I'm now at the point in my career at which I'm being invited to give lectures at other departments, so I'll likely continue to do so. But I'm wondering at what point, if any, it looks bad/weird on one's CV to keep "milking" the same talk.

Personally, I don't think people pay too much attention to that part of a CV, but in any case I'm inclined to think that the more salient question is whether continuing to present the paper improves it. That's sort of the point of giving a talk (to get feedback), right?

What do readers think?

Publishing short and long versions of an argument?

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

Question about publication 'ethics': Say a philosopher is working on a project and is drafting a long, journal article length paper on the subject. While working on that project, the opportunity arises to publish a much shorter commentary style paper version of the longer paper, which would leave out a lot of details but highlight one specific part of the longer project. Is it weird to have a 'short' and 'long' version of an argument be published, if there are things highlighted or discussed differently between the two?

Interesting question. I remember being in a similar position earlier in my career, and though my memory is hazy, I think that to play it safe, I just published one version of the argument (the short version). My understanding is that something sort of similar to what the OP describes ("salami-slicing") is considered unethical in the sciences, but it's not entirely clear from what the OP describes whether this is like that ("highlighting one specific part" of a larger argument may be quite different than the long-version presenting the rest of a much more involved argument). Then again, the OP also describes the short version as a "commentary ... version of the longer paper" as well as a "short" and "long" version of a single argument, so I'm not sure.

What do readers think?

Zoom chat next Tuesday to celebrate Helen De Cruz's philosophical artwork

For those of you who may not be aware, long-time Cocoon contributor (and friend) Helen De Cruz is sadly in hospice care with a terminal illness.

Next Tuesday, Georgi Gardiner (Tulane) is organizing a Zoom meeting to celebrate Helen's philosophical artworks. Details are below. I hope many of you choose to both spread the word and attend.

On Zoom: https://tulane.zoom.us/j/6185944474

Tuesday, June 24th, 2025

11am - 12.20pm Central US Time

(i.e. 5pm BST)

All welcome! No background knowledge required.

You need not know Helen or her work, or have a background in philosophy.

Please help spread the word!

Sharing this post, flyer, facebook event, or website is extremely helpful.

Website: georgigardiner.com/helen

Facebook: www.facebook.com/share/16WNQuVvTv/

Organiser: Georgi Gardiner

Contact: [email protected]

Single- vs. double- & triple-anonymized journals?

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

Do you know philosophy journals reviewed in single-anonymized or identities-visible models? Recently I saw an established philosophy journal published by Springer say in its submission guidelines that its peer review process is single anonymized.

According to the accompanying taxonomy file available at https://osf.io/we82n
Single anonymized means Reviewer masked to author, author visible to reviewer, reviewer and author visible to (decision-making) editor;
Double anonymized: Reviewer masked to author, author masked to reviewer, reviewer and author visible to (decision-making) editor;
Triple anonymized: Reviewer masked to author, author masked to reviewer, reviewer & author masked to (decision-making) editor;
All identities visible: Reviewer visible to author, author visible to reviewer, reviewer
and author visible to (decision-making) editor.

Since most philosophy journals seem to be Double or Triple anonymized, I am curious about philosophy journals reviewed in single-anonymized or identities-visible models. Do you know good philosophy journals adopt these models? What are the differences between the four models? Identities-visible model seems interesting because reviewers know that authors will know their identities, and so they tend to write the reports in much more responsible ways. But what about single-anonymized review? Reviewers know the identities of authors, but authors does not know the identities of reviewers, shall this model produce more responsible reports?

I've received many 100 to 200 word reports with very biased, or deeply disrespectful and irrelevant, or even shameless and wrong comments from philosophy journals that adopt Double or Triple anonymized review models.

Interesting questions. I was surprised to learn a number of years ago that in some scientific fields, single-anonymized review (authors' identities being visible to reviewers) is pretty much the norm. I didn't ever learn why that is exactly, but from what I gathered the results of the process did seem to be pretty biased in favor of well-placed researchers ("name" researchers at prestigious institutions/programs). Obviously, triple-anonymized review is supposed to be the best process for preventing biases like these--and I suspect most readers of the Cocoon are likely to favor triple-anonymity over the others--but as the OP notes there may be other tradeoffs.

What do readers think? 

Invited commentary articles: peer-reviewed or not?

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

A journal has invited me to comment on one of their recent articles, but advised that the draft I submit will not be editable except in minor ways. I assume this means I will not be receiving substantive feedback on it. In that case, should such a publication be listed as 'peer-reviewed' on my resume? I suspect that scholars familiar with the journal, which is the best in its subfield, would find it strange to see a publication in this venue listed as an 'Other Publication' or the like.

I'm not sure whether there's sufficient information in this query to tell one way or the other. For one thing, the OP doesn't seem sure whether they'll be receiving any substantive feedback. But for another, it's not clear whether the commentary will be subject to any kind of peer-review (e.g., by the editor) or simply published as received. Obviously, if it's the latter, it shouldn't be listed as peer-reviewed. So maybe the OP should just ask the editor?

What do readers think?

Tips for writing short (Analysis-style) papers?

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

I have been toying with the idea of writing and (hopefully) publishing a short article (Analysis style), but I feel quite unprepared. I have published a bit, but always long articles (my articles are often on the longer side). Any tips on writing short papers that aren't reply pieces?

Good question. Do readers have any tips?

Visiting scholar positions for a sabbatical?

A reader writes in by email:

I have been granted a sabbatical for the Spring semester 2026 from my College. Although I have applied for several fellowships, my applications were not successful. Now that the fellowship application period has passed, I'm looking for ways to make the most of my sabbatical. 

One option is to apply for visitor or visiting scholar positions at a university, which are typically unpaid. Another option is to pursue a visitor scholar position that may allow me to teach a class or two at the host university or at a nearby school, to offset the cost of travel and living expenses. 

I would greatly appreciate any advice from philosophers who have sought similar opportunities. Are there specific opportunities I should be looking for? What is the best approach to applying for visiting scholar positions? Do you have tips for reducing the cost associated with such visits?

Good questions. Do any readers have tips to share?

Tips for getting (and giving) feedback on new work?

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

I have never liked conferences, and my (non-tt, teaching-focused) job doesn't provide much financial support for conference participation anyway. However, I very much enjoy research and I like getting/giving feedback on new work. I have found informal settings to be much more productive than conferences, e.g. just swapping papers with friends in the profession and then meeting over Zoom to discuss. I'm wondering if people have found other successful ways to get/give feedback on research outside of the formal conference setting. I guess one issue here is that what I'm talking about doesn't translate well into documentable research activity that can be used for hiring/promotion purposes. However, setting that issue to the side, does anyone have any tips here?

Good question. Anyone have any helpful tips?

Norms for journal advisory board members

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

I would like to understand the role of an advisory board member for a journal.

I was invited to join the advisory board of a lesser-known journal, and they clarified that my involvement would require no responsibilities. This seems unusual to me.

I expect that advisory board members should provide guidance to the editors or help ensure that the journal maintains its integrity and fairness through their reputation. Could someone clarify this for me?

I don't know much about the inner workings of journals, but this seems weird to me too.

Do any readers have any helpful insights?

Norms for journals publishing things by editors?

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

What are the norms on journals publishing articles written by editors? I saw a case yesterday and I was surprised it stills happens.

I don't know. I've seen this occur various times over the years and haven't quite known what to make of it.

What do readers think?

Sudden spikes in PhilPapers downloads?

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

Does anyone have insight into what drives traffic to philpaper/people, or how awareness of pages spreads? I guess it's hard to track the exact flow of awareness?

I usually get c.1000 hits a month on my papers, but the for the last 5 days I've been getting 500 hits a day, and 90% of them are from different localities in Vietnam and Brazil. I guess you really have no idea who your audience is...

I noticed this too, and it happened to the Cocoon's visit numbers a year or two ago. Several readers speculated that it's probably PhilPapers being scraped to train AI. This seems like the most likely scenario to me as well.

Obviously, it's a bit late now, but seems to me that webhosts should probably implement things to prevent this (such as CAPTCHA tests). ¯\\(ツ)/¯

Leave academia ASAP, or wait/prep for a year?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader posed a query that I missed:

After years trying to solve my two-body problem, I've decided I'm finished with the profession. Living alone while fascism rises is just not worth it (I'm in the US). But for various reasons, I can't leave for another year. I worry that the job advice here and elsewhere may be moot by that time, given the rise of AI, a looming economic crisis in the US, and all the rest. Is there anything I should or can be doing now? Is an immediate pivot a wiser move than waiting, even if that means leaving an employer stuck and ongoing academic collaborators in the lurch?

I imagine there are others in similar positions. If so, thoughts about how to manage another year in academia while mentally having moved on, thinking about other careers, would be welcome.

I'm not sure, but maybe the OP would find our Alt-Ac transition-tips series helpful? 

Do any other readers have any helpful tips or advice to share?

How can we help you? (June 2025)

Now that it's been several months 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 (including in the age of A.I.)
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask away - we're here to help! 

Finally, a quick reminder of the following RULE: Please do not submit replies to other comments in this thread. It makes these threads unwieldy and difficult for me to keep track of which queries I've posted new threads on. If you'd like to respond to a comment in this thread, please wait until I dedicate a new post to the person's query myself and comment in that thread instead!

BPA's "Resources for Early Career Philosophers"

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader drew my attention to the British Philosophical Association's Resources for Early Career Philosophers page.

It contains a lot of really helpful stuff, including tip sheets for the job-market, applying for grants and fellowship, publishing, grappling with mental health challenges, and starting a new job, along with a number of sample job-market materials and resources for pursuing alternative, non-academic career paths.

It looks like a really great resource!