The Philosophers' Cocoon

Concerns about traveling to the US?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a concerned reader writes:

I'm heading to a large conference in the southern US later this year, where I'll be presenting on a topic that is under attack by the current administration (think reproductive rights, trans rights, etc.). I'm an academic in Canada, so I'll be traveling across the border. But I'm a US citizen, for whatever that's worth.

I haven't been able to find any real information about how worried I should be or what I should do as I prepare to go to the US. I'm privileged to be in Canada, but I have a deep sense of responsibility to participate in some kind of resistance -- which has been much harder for me since I'm not currently embedded in my usual US community. So, I'm fairly committed to going to this conference.

But I just keep getting increasingly worried, and since most academics in Canada are completely avoiding the US (for good reason!!!), it's been difficult to get any advice on what to do if I'm set on going. I guess I'm just wondering if anyone has any sense of how dangerous this could be, what precautions I ought to take, etc. Any thoughts or advice?

Sadly (for so many reasons), all I know about is what I read in the news. One reader submitted the following response:

I don't have much of info on your specific situation, but one piece of advice I have seen time and time again is to turn off the Face ID feature for unlocking your phone when you cross the border!! As I understand it ICE/customs agents are abusing the Face ID unlock feature by waving it in front of people's faces, whereas they (allegedly) need a warrant in order to get your phone passcode number. A lot of the recent border denials seem to have revolved around contents on the individuals' phones, so this is something to keep in mind when you are coming in to the U.S. with info on your phone that they may not like.

Do any other readers have any relevant experiences or tips to share?

Anxious academics in the UK on a Visa?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, an anxious reader in the UK on a visa writes:

My guess is that some are in a similar situation to me: on a Skilled Worker Visa (not Global Talent Visa), are a few years from Indefinitely Leave to Remain (maybe equivalent to the US Green Card?), and has an employer who's unwilling to pay the visa costs and Immigration Health Surcharge.

A few months ago, the UK government decided to crack down on immigration. One thing we know is that the government wants to increase the 5 year residency requirement before being eligible for Indefinitely Leave to Remain to 10 years. What we don't yet know is whether this will apply to people already in the country, and if so, whether we will qualify for “earned settlement” i.e. made sufficient "contributions to the UK economy and society.”

Not seeking any insight into how the government will implement it, as this is anyone's guess before actual details are revealed. Just asking whether anyone in a similar situation would like to commiserate about how this country is unwelcoming to migrants.

Are any other readers in a similar situation?

Prestige & book presses?

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

How prestigious are presses like Bloomsbury, Routledge, Rowman & Littlefield, Lexington, etc. compared to university presses? On the one hand, I have sometimes heard people in the humanities say university presses are the "gold standard" for academics in terms of hiring and promotion. On the other hand, many of these non-university presses rank higher in informal surveys than many university presses (e.g. https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2013/02/best-philosophy-publishers-in-english.html). I am especially interested in Bloomsbury's reputation: since the time of Leiter's survey, it has obtained a number of other publishers ranked in the top 20, such as Rowman & Littlefield. Does this indicate that Bloomsbury has a comparable prestige?

I'm not sure what to go on here beyond the Leiter poll referenced above. In terms of Bloomsbury, it obtained Rowman & Littlefield, but they're still different "imprints" right? So, I'm not sure that Bloomsbury purchasing them out affects the prestige of publishing with Bloomsbury per se.

What do readers think?

When you're asked to review your own paper?

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

What should I do when I am asked by a triple blind journal to review a paper that I myself submitted?

Obviously I will not agree to review it, but I'm wondering what is the best way to decline the request.

Usually when you decline a review, a paper's Editorial Manager site will ask for comments/recommendations for other referees.

I imagine this is something to note there? 

Thoughts on Leiter-poll journal rankings?

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

I noticed that the Leiter poll journal rankings are pretty consistent throughout the years in how certain journals are ranked. I was curious if there's anyone out there who'd care to share if they have a strong disagreement about the rankings of some of the journals there, and even some unranked there.

Here are Leiter's 2022 and 2018 poll results for "general" philosophy journals, and his 2022 and 2018 polls for journals specializing in moral and political philosophy.

Does anyone have strong disagreements?

Submitting book proposals and/or manuscripts to multiple presses?

A reader wrote in by email asking "whether it’s fine to submit a book proposal, or manuscript, to multiple publishers at once?"

I wrote the following here back in 2015:

4. Is it acceptable to send out proposals to multiple presses at the same time? Is it a good idea? I know Leiter had a thread on this a while back and absolutely no one could agree. 

I struggled (as Sam did) to find good answers to this online, but actually in my experience it has a very straightforward answer: each publisher has their own policies. Some publishers will not consider a proposal under review elsewhere, others will. The important thing is to be communicate clearly with whomever you are dealing with. In your query letter, for instance, you might say, "My proposal is currently under review at other presses." In many cases, editors simply sent me an email telling me to try again later. In other cases, they were happy to look at the proposal even if it were under review elsewhere.

Things are very different, however, when it comes to the review process for entire book manuscripts. In my experience, most (but not all) presses will not permit you to have your entire manuscript under review elsewhere while they are reviewing it. There is one exception to this I encountered myself, and which you might ask about. Some publishers will allow you to have your manuscript reviewed at other presses if you confer to them a "right of first-refusal"--which is basically a binding agreement that you will publish the book with them if they accept it, even if another (possibly better) press wants to offer you a contract. The editor at Routledge offered me this, and I was very thankful, since I was able to have my entire manuscript reviewed by multiple places simultaneously (many other presses would not review the manuscript while it was under review with Routledge, but some did!). This sped up the entire book publishing process for me immeasurably. I placed the entire manuscript under review with several presses all at the same time, and a few months later I heard from all three of them at roughly the same time. 

Do any other readers have helpful insights or experiences to share?

Serious misgivings about a paper in R&R?

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

I've recently received an R&R from a journal. However, I now have significant misgivings about the paper; I no longer like the way I framed the issue, my views have developed/changed since the manuscript has been under review, etc. The referee report suggested a number of changes. However, there are many things not mentioned by the referee that I would like to change. Frankly, I would prefer to scrap the manuscript altogether and rewrite it from scratch. What do people recommend doing in this kind of situation? Is withdrawing the manuscript unreasonable? If not, what do I say to the journal/editor? Some context: I am a junior academic with a non-tt but permanent position. I already have a handful of publications in respectable journals. I felt somewhat rushed in sending this manuscript out for job market reasons (it's one of the main positive contributions of my diss.), I'm now regretting doing so.

This seems like a tough situation. On the one hand, I don't think rewriting the entire paper from scratch is advisable for an R&R. I think I tried that once a very long time ago, and the response I received from reviewers was all-too-predictable: they were pretty outraged that I had the temerity to send in a completely different paper--which they felt was inappropriate for an R&R and basically wasted their time. In brief, I think an R&R probably has to be a revised version of what was previously submitted--at least if it is to have a real chance of acceptance. But maybe I'm wrong about this. Have others tried full-scale paper rewrites at the R&R stage and had success in the process?

As for withdrawing the paper, that's always an author's prerogative. But I'm not sure that anyone can answer the question of whether to do that better than the OP. Why? Because I guess it depends upon how unhappy they are with the paper, and whether they think they'd regret publishing any version of it that might get through the R&R process. From the sound of things (and given that it is one of the main contributions of their dissertation), it seems like the OP would regret publishing without full-scale rewriting--which would seemingly speak in favor of withdrawing. Finally, though, if the OP is still looking for a TT job, then what to do may depend upon whether publishing the paper would help or hinder their efforts at obtaining one (which could depend upon the kind of journal the paper is at). 

What do other readers think?

Do people browse (mid- to lower-tier) journals?

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

Does anyone browse mid- to lower-tier journals looking for something to read, or do people only read articles there when something outside refers them to them?

Personally, I don't browse journals simpliciter: I just see what comes up in PhilPapers's new items list or whatever else I come across in the course of my research (viz. Google Scholar, etc.). In any case, I don't discriminate between tiers of journals. If a paper is relevant to what I'm writing, then I cite and/or engage with it in detail. If it's not, then I don't.

What about other readers? Do you "browse journals"? Or is your research process more freewheeling like mine?

Is it Okay to be a Moderate? Podcast interview @Academic Edgelords

This is just a quick note that Academic Edgelords has a new podcast episode up interviewing me on my recent book, Why It's OK to be a Moderate. 

Here's the episode description:

Is moderation just fence-sitting, or is it a forgotten virtue? In this episode, we sit down with philosopher Marcus Arvan to discuss his new book Why It’s OK to Be a Moderate. We dig into why radicals often steal the spotlight, how moral certainty can slip into fanaticism, and why history may vindicate moderates more than we think. We also debate Arvan on the moral permissibility of centrism.

You can also listen at:

Apple podcasts

Spotify

Conference info beyond PhilEvents?

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

What's the best way to find out about conferences/workshops in one's areas? Does philevents basically cover all bases here, or are there are other resources that I should be availing myself of?

I basically rely on PhilEvents and the Philos-L listserve ([email protected]). 

What about other readers?

Working in solitude during sabbatical?

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

I have seen many questions on sabbatical here, and many suggestions. In particular, I have seen many testimonies of how nice and useful visiting another university is. But I wonder if there is anyone who can testify on the effects of a different way of spending the sabbatical, namely deep working/reading in solitude for the entirety of sabbatical.

This is my plan, because for some idiosyncratic reasons I can't visit anywhere. Also, my experience in the past of giving random talks in nearby universities and have zoom discussions did not prove to be a productive way to spend a sabbatical.

Success and failure stories are both welcome!

Good query. I've only had one sabbatical, and I had to turn down an invitation to visit another institution for family reasons. But I've always done most of my philosophical work in solitude and (mostly) enjoy it that way.  So, what I did during my sabbatical was basically what I ordinarily do during the summer: read/write maybe 4-5 hours per day each weekday (which is the most that I can really do on consistent basis). I found it to be great, but if you're not accustomed to working that way, I imagine it may take some adjusting.

I was going to suggest that maybe the OP consider arranging an informal reading group to discuss some of their work in progress and keep up with the work of others, but it sounds like they've done something similar in the past (albeit with more formal talks and zoom discussions), but they didn't find that terribly helpful.

Do any other readers have any helpful tips and/or experiences to share?

Senior faculty's assumptions about job candidates?

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

One of the more frustrating aspects of academia is how often senior faculty, including those tasked with supporting job candidates, assume that people on the market are young, naive, and not quite fully adult.

Why is this the default assumption?

I'm a 36-year-old married scholar with two young children, and yet I'm frequently treated—especially by North American colleagues—as if I were a grad student in need of unsolicited life advice or professional guidance. The tone often implies that I’m too inexperienced to know my own mind, and seems to show tacit commitment to the assumption that postdocs are somehow too young to know themselves, or something. In my case, I have been offered tenure-track positions, but I have turned them down for very good personal and professional reasons.

Can we stop equating job market status with youth, naivety, or incompleteness? Why is this even an assumption? Can any senior or mid-career scholars weigh in on how they have critically reflected on their treatment of those who are professionally junior, and changed their treatment of those who are professionally junior as a result?

One analogue here, I think, is how I was treated before and after having children. Before children, I was sometimes treated as though there was some sort of incompleteness as an adult stemming from the lack of children, which is rubbish.

I'd be interested to hear from others who’ve experienced this, and from senior or mid-career scholars who have advice on how to speak to junior colleagues without condescension.

Another reader reported similar experiences:

I do not have a solution. I just want to say that my experience is pretty similar: I find the North American attitude towards researchers in precarious jobs very disrespectful. Although I have to say that there are some people who are very supportive and treat me like an intellectual peer (usually those are people with an international profile, though...).

Have other readers had similar experiences? Any concrete suggestions for how senior faculty should do better?

Research guidance after grad school / online communities for philosophical research?

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

I am curious how people get suggestions and guidance regarding one’s research after graduate school, especially for those who work in small departments where there are minimal overlaps between people’s research interests. I am not talking about conference papers or substantive drafts, but some early-stage, premature ideas, or some relatively basic questions.

More specifically, I have seen really great discussions and suggestions both here (thank you, Marcus!) and the “Teaching Philosophy” facebook group. I guess I am looking for a counterpart of such online communities for research. Somewhere I can ask questions anonymously, such as “I become interested in topic X. What are some recent works on it?”, “I had a really hard time understanding the concept Y. Can anyone help me or suggest some readings?”

Do any readers who have been in a similar situation have any helpful tips?

When to pull a book manuscript from an unresponsive publisher?

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

When should one pull a book project from an unresponsive press? My editor at a major press has screwed up at almost every step of the process. For example, she failed to deanonymize peer review comments, which has hurt one of my professional relationships. After passing peer review in September, I have still not received a contract. Now she hasn't responded to my emails for months, since January (she is certainly still at the press). I asked to switch editors with no luck. I feel like I'm falling into the gambler fallacy at this point.

I'm really sorry to hear that the OP is dealing with this, as I know just how much work a book is and how invested in it one can be--and it seems unprofessional for an editor not to respond for so long. But if the editor hasn't been responding for months on end, I'm apt to think that the thing to do is to inform them that if you don't hear from them by some date X, you plan to move on.

What do readers think?

AI Won’t Replace You - But Academics Who Use AI Will?

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

What do we make of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I3KQjHfZjY

The creator does not direct their concerns towards Academic Philosophy (or any other part of the Humanities), but as someone pursuing their postgraduate/doctorate/postdoc, how seriously should one take the rather strongly made suggestions in the video?

I haven't watched the entire video yet, but basically the guy's angle seems to be that academics who use AI to do research (write rough drafts, etc.) and other tasks (teaching prep?)--and academic institutions that let and/or encourage them to do it--are likely to benefit and outcompete those that don't. Importantly, though, his catchphrase seems to be: "We're not losing skills, we're shifting the skill focus because now certain things are just done for us."

While I suspect he may be right that the tech may receive rapid uptake for "competitive advantage" reasons, I don't think that is likely to benefit people on balance. For, my understanding is that emerging research suggests the above catchphrase is just false: generative AI does a terrible job doing things like summarizing research, and moreover, using it does atrophy skills.

This is why I basically don't use it. I tried using it a couple of times to see how well it could help me do background research--instead of manually searching through Google, Google Scholar, PhilPapers, etc.--and guess what? It was basically useless: I spent more time trying to figure out whether the information and sources it was giving me were accurate than I would have spend just searching for stuff the old-fashioned way. And yes, I also don't want to lose my own ability to think, write, and have an authorial voice of my own. I haven't even bothered to try to use it for anything teaching-related, as that just seems to me like a cheat. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?