The Philosophers' Cocoon

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?

Listing submitted papers, etc. on a CV?

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

CV question: do you list submitted papers or posters to conferences, or ongoing session planning for a future conference, on your CV?

Maybe just adding it to the list of papers/posters presented and sessions organized, with a note that its still just a submission or in progress or by a separate section "Conferences Submissions" (or something like that?

I ask both because I am cleaning my CV for the end of year filing at my PhD program and for an application to an academic society.

I have to confess that I find it a bit strange when people list submitted pieces on a CV. If you're on the job-market and have a revise-and-resubmit to a journal, then I can understand listing that, as a committee might see it as relevant information. But merely submitted stuff (including conference submissions)? I guess it's hard for me to see what probative value that has, at least for the job-market. But maybe these things are relevant for an "end of the year filing" within a PhD program? I've never heard of this before, but I guess in this case it might show that you've been productive in the sense of getting things out for review. And maybe the same is true for things like applications to academic societies? As for session planning for conferences, I think that seems like something one can list for service, as it shows you're being active in the profession.

What do readers think?

Dissertation Committee/Job-Market Question

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

I am an ABD graduate student at a top-50 currently visiting a top program. I have three professors on my dissertation committee: two at my home institution and my sponsoring professor from the institution I'm visiting. All have offered to write me letters for when I enter the job market next year, so I currently have three general letters.

I am currently sitting in on two seminars at the institution I am visiting. The first is the seminar of my sponsoring professor. The second is a seminar by a very well-regarded professor not in my AoS but in a nearby discipline where I have at least some specialist knowledge (if it helps: I work primarily in philosophy of mind, and the seminar is Mind/Language). The latter professor has repeatedly thanked me in personal discussions for my contributions inside and outside of class and offered to look at a paper I've been working on broadly related to the course topic. In general, we seem to vibe really well.

I have three questions: should I ask them for a recommendation, despite their not being in my AoS nor being the professor I am specifically visiting at this institution? Second, and relatedly: should I ask them to be on my committee? I really value their input generally and we've talked a bit about my dissertation topic, which they seem to be interested in even if it's not strictly in their AoS (it's more on perception than language). Their being on my committee would also seem to help with 1., insofar as they can become more familiar with my core work. Third, should I worry about this putting off any of my extant committee members/letter writers? I've had a lot of really good interactions with my sponsoring professor, for example, but I worry adding a second member of the department to my committee would look desperate, or like social climbing.

Any input is appreciated! Can also supply more details if needed.

It definitely seems to me like a recommendation would be a good idea, given that the professor is well-regarded and at a top program. Strong outside recommendation letters may even be given more weight by hiring committees since (unlike recommenders in your home program) the recommender doesn't have a vested interest in your success. As for whether it would be a good idea to ask them to serve on the OP's dissertation committee, I'm not sure.

What does everyone think?

Tips/insights on invited publications?

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

I'd be grateful if people could shed some light on "invited" publications. I see this on CVs: under "research" there are publications which are listed as "invited". These include contributions to edited volumes, but I've also seen what at least appear to be journal articles sometimes listed as "invited". How does one get invited to contribute to an edited volume/journal? Is this something that just happens as one's work becomes more known? Is it more of a social thing; a matter of being friends with the right people? Do "invited" publications go through a blind review process like regular journal articles? From the perspective of hiring committees, do invited publications look just as good a paper that was accepted at a journal after going through blind review? Better? Worse? I'm a junior person who's only ever published by submitting manuscripts to journals. Any info here would be appreciated.

All good questions. My own sense is that invited publications tend not to look as good as peer-reviewed journal articles. Why? Well, because although invited articles typically are peer-reviewed, it's not always clear how anonymized the process is and because there may be more of a general bias in favor of acceptance (for example, in an edited volume, if not enough papers are accepted, then the volume itself may not be viable!). So I think that while invited pieces can be a positive (they show that other people in the discipline are interested in publishing your work), they look best when combined with a strong journal publishing record. But these are just a few of my quick reactions.

What do readers think? Any helpful insights on any of the OP's questions?

Tips for job-marketeers looking for teaching-focused job?

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

I'm a graduate student at an adequate department (think top 40) with a strong placement record. [Perhaps those details don't matter but in case they do I've included them.]

While I enjoy research and would be happy to make it my career, I find myself more attracted (at the moment) to the long term career prospects of having a teaching focus rather than a research focus. How would you recommend someone in my position approach their work and the job market? What should I have on my CV? What types of jobs should I be looking for when I enter the market? Am I crazy for preferring the idea of a career as a professor with a teaching focus?

Good questions. One quick answer to the last question: no, it's not crazy at all. Teaching is a majority of what you'll do in a lot of academic jobs, so if you enjoy it, that's all the better!

Do any readers have any other helpful tips?