The Philosophers' Cocoon

The in-person conference quandary

This June I went to my first in-person conference in over two years. It was in UMSL, which is in the town I'm currently based in (St Louis), so it was an easy transition. And it was lovely--exhausting but lovely. I also have a couple of more events lined up this fall. After a hiatus of in-person conferencing,  there's a general sense for many academics that "it's endemic now." We can't really expect improvements in vaccine effectiveness or transmission rates, so basically we have to do life under these circumstances. And academic life involves (for many of us) in-person conferences.

But I worry that this creates disparity in opportunities and professional development, exacerbating disparities that already exist in many cases, such as for disabled and chronically ill people. 

I got Covid in late April 2022 after being very cautious for over two years, and was quite sick for several weeks (sicker I thought I would be given that I got the full vaccination and a booster.) For the few weeks after recovery I reckoned I was OK in terms of immunity and went to a few events that I normally still deem to risky, such as a lovely dinner organized by the local Jesuit training center which is associated to SLU. It was a great event and the food was great, but it was also a very poorly ventilated area with so many people.

Explaining job titles in applications?

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

I hope I can pose a neurotic and basically trivial question. I'm a junior academic in the UK whose official job title is 'lecturer' but it is a permanent position. Is it wise or appropriate to explain on my CV or website that the position is equivalent to what is called 'assistant professor', which it is what it is called at some other UK institutions and the closest thing to the position in most of the rest of the anglophone world?

I think that virtually everyone on a hiring committee knows what a Lecturer is in the UK, so although I could be wrong, I don't think that warrants explanation in a job application. However, I am curious about job titles in other countries--for example, I know someone who was a Research Fellow in Australia, but I don't know exactly what that means, and I know that in some European countries, recent PhDs often have to complete Habilitations and hold Privatdozent positions, which sort of sound like postdocs and non-tenure track positions, but again, I'm not exactly sure! What do readers think? When (if ever) should job applicants explain their job titles in their application materials? For what kinds of positions, and why?

Dealing with unresponsive journals (again)?

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

Here's a(nother) question about dealing with unresponsive journals:

I submitted a paper last summer (2021). It is with a good journal in my subfield and is one of my better papers. It initially received a 'revise and resubmit, no commitment to publishing' in November '21, and I resubmitted in December '21. The paper has been untouched since then (i.e., for about seven months). The editors have not responded to two emails asking whether the paper is still actively under review.

When do I pull out? At the nine-month mark? The one-year mark? I would of course like to publish with them, but continuing to wait could lead to problems for my career. Thanks in advance for any advice.

Good questions. We've discussed how to handle slow and unresponsive journals before, but the question seems to come up fairly often, so I think it's important to discuss. Personally, I think I'd send the editors one more email and pull the paper within a week or two if they don't respond. There are always other good journals out there, and if you got a revise-and-resubmit at this journal, chances are you'll get one (or perhaps even an acceptance) at another good journal. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Thanking previous referees in submissions?

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

I have a paper that was rejected from a journal, but with an unbelievably helpful referee report that is instrumental in rewriting the paper. How do I acknowledge this anonymous reviewer when I resubmit the paper to a new journal? Is it odd to acknowledge a reviewer from a previous journal's review process in a new submission?

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

[U]sually submissions should not include any acknowledgements, so then there's no problem. Once the paper is accepted and you add acknowledgements you can acknowledge a reviewer from a previous journal.

I respectfully disagree. When I submit papers to journals, I often include acknowledgments to anonymous referees--usually in footnotes at places in the paper that have been substantially revised due to referees' suggestions. I don't mention which journal(s) the referees were from, as I think that could introduce biases into the review process. But I tend to thank referees because I think they deserve the acknowledgment, and because I worry that if I incorporated a ton of their feedback into the paper without acknowledging them, it might irritate them (or worse) if they are asked to review the paper again for the new journal. I've also never been asked to remove these kinds of acknowledgments in an initial submission precisely because they are anonymized (though if I ever were asked to remove them, of course I would). My understanding at any rate, has always been that the reason that journals ask you to "remove acknowledgments" is to preserve anonymized review and prevent bias (which might occur, obviously, if you write things like, "I thank Derek Parfit and audiences at NYU and Princeton for their feedback").

Anyway, this is just what I do and my experience with my approach. What do you all think?

Norms for travel reimbursement in the COVID era?

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

What are the current norms about COVID and travel reimbursement? For example, suppose one gets invited for an in-person talk and the host promises to pay. But due to COVID, the trip had to be cancelled, the talk had to be given online, and some travel arrangements are unrefundable. Should the host pay? Or, for example, suppose one is traveling using university money, but again the trip had to be cancelled, is it still okay to submit the unrefundable travel costs for reimbursement?

Good questions. My experience is that many universities have strict policies governing these kinds of things, such that if you don't actually travel it's against their rules to submit travel reimbursements. So, on that, I'd be careful and forthright with your university about your situation. Hopefully, they'll be understanding. In terms of invited talks, if the in-person visit is canceled, it seems to me that the host should clearly cover non-refundable costs. But these are just my thoughts and experiences. What are yours?

Contributing to journal special issues?

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

Are journal special issues worth anything?

I have just seen a call for papers for a special issue of a journal. I have a paper in preparation that would fit exactly into this special issue. However, the journal is somewhat lower ranked than I would optimally hope to publish in (I know journal rankings are probably mostly bullshit, but I need a job).

So, is there any advantage to publishing in a special issue? And is this advantage big enough to accept say a 10 ranking drop in journal ranking?

These are good questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think where you place your paper really matters. People read and cite my work that is published in Philosophy of Science and Synthese more than they read and cite my work published in more obscure journals. Further, journal ranking matters because it is one "short cut" people use in deciding which of the many new papers in their area they should read.

This seems to me a common view, but I'm not so sure about it. Some of my most-cited pieces are in relatively obscure journals. Also, it may be worth considering what the special issue as a whole looks like. For example, I was recently invited to contribute to a special issue in a journal that I hadn't heard of before, but it was an attractive invitation not only because I had a piece that I really wanted to write on the topic, but also because the special issue editor and other contributors are excellent, well-known philosophers. So, even though it's a journal that I hadn't heard of, I expect it will probably get read by people interested in the topic. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Importing commentator feedback into a paper?

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

I am wondering what the proper thing to do is in the following situation. A person was assigned as a commentator on my paper at a conference, and in their comments they summarized the main argument of my paper in premise form. The form was implicit in my argument, but now that I am revising the paper, I would like to include the argument in premise form. What is the right thing to do around using either their summary, or maybe a slightly altered version. Should I state in a footnote something like 'thanks to x for suggesting the following formulation'? Should I do that even if I change it somewhat? Or should I just thank them at the end in the acknowledgements and in the places where they suggested a given objection to a part of my argument (I will do both of these either way, of course)? The main thing that is confusing me is that the argument was there already in the original, and so a thing of my making, but not explicitly in premise form, and so a thing of their making. But then if I had gone through the trouble of making it more explicit, then I would have likely arrived at something very similar to their end product. So, what to do?

This is an excellent question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think it would be nice to thank x for specifically that. Maybe at the argument, add a footnote like "this argument was explicitly formulated first in x's helpful comments." This does not imply that you wouldn't be able to formulate yourself.

I think things are a bit more complicated than this. Even though the argument the commentator placed into premise-conclusion is of your making, the particular formulation of it in premise-conclusion form is (as the OP notes) of their making. So, I think simply taking it and importing it into the paper, even with minor alterations and an acknowledgment, may be a bit dicey. Personally, I think the safe thing to do here would be to simply email the commentator to ask them whether they are okay with you using it, noting that you would of course acknowledge them in the paper for suggesting it. This not only seems to me to be called for as a matter of professional courtesy. You also never know: perhaps if you don't ask, the person could get upset and lodge some kind of research misconduct (e.g. plagiarism) allegation. This may seem unlikely (and unreasonable), but why chance it when you can just ask them instead before going forward?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

 

New paper in Social Theory and Practice: 'Educational Justice and School Boosting'

This is just a quick note that I have a new paper forthcoming in Social Theory and Practice, "Educational Justice and School Boosting." Here's the abstract:

School boosters are tax-exempt organizations that engage in fundraising efforts to provide public schools with supplementary resources. This paper argues that prevailing forms of school boosting are defeasibly unjust. Section 1 shows that inequalities in public education funding in the United States violate John Rawls’s two principles of domestic justice. Section 2 argues that prevailing forms of school boosting exacerbate and plausibly perpetuate these injustices. Section 3 then contends that boosting thereby defeasibly violates Rawlsian principles of nonideal theory for rectifying injustice. Thus, boosting should be presumptively either made illegal or substantially reformed. Finally, Section 4 responds to potential objections.

Deciding whether to review a paper?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an early grad student writes:

I'm wondering how to decide whether to referee a paper. I just got my first request, and from what I can gather from the abstract, this doesn't seem like an editorial call I'm particularly qualified to make. Would appreciate any thoughts.

This is a great query. Another reader (an editor) submitted the following reply:

Do not agree to referee a paper you believe you are not qualified to referee. Referees are to give their expert opinion - if you are not an expert, then your opinion is irrelevant.

I think this seems right as far as it goes (if a bit blunt!), but I'm curious whether we might be able to give the OP more helpful positive advice. How do you decide whether to review a paper? 

How often to meet with committee members?

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

I don’t meet a lot with my committee members and they’re quite hands-off but I know some people that meet theirs very regularly. I feel like I’m falling behind a lot, and I want to meet them more but I’m slow at putting out work to show them. So I’m wondering how often did you meet with your supervisor and other committee members, and how often do those on committees want us to meet?

This is an excellent question, and I'm curious what readers' answers are. Although it's obviously been a while since I've been in grad school, my sense is that one of the most serious and common errors that grad students make is to avoid meeting consistently enough with their committee members, or at least with their dissertation supervisor. Let me explain.

Thanking too many people in a paper?

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

Perhaps this is a silly or trivial question, but I've been wondering about it since a thread came up a few weeks ago. My practice has always been to basically acknowledge anyone who gave me feedback on a paper, even if it was just a brief conversation that gave me something to think about. For that reason my acknowledgements section in my papers is usually pretty long—now that I think about it, probably considerably longer than most papers I read. I always included everyone just since on the other side, it always gives me a nice feeling to see my name in an acknowledgements section and I assumed it was costless for me to just include people. But it occurred to me that perhaps not only is this not the done thing, but maybe it makes it look like my papers are more 'crowdsourced' than they are, which isn't a good look.

This may not be a huge issue, but still, I think it's worth discussing, as readers may recall that we discussed paper acknowledgments about a month ago. In response, a UK postdoc submitted the following comment:

To be honest, I doubt that anyone will try to draw any conclusions about your paper from the acknowledgements section. They could just as well conclude the opposite: that you are well-connected, that many people are interested in your work, or indeed that you are very generous with your gratitude!

What do you all think?

How do you work during summer?

It's been a while since I've asked the Cocoon a question of my own, but I've been struggling a bit with what my summer work schedule and routine should look like, so here goes: how do you work during summer breaks from teaching? For example, how many hours would you say that you spend on average per day working? How does your typical summer work day break down (in terms of reading, writing, etc.)? How many days per week do you work? And how much time do you take off during summer "for vacation" (or rest and relaxation)? In addition to hearing your answers, it might be great to hear what stage of your career you are in and what kind of institution you are at!

Providing multiple arguments for a premise?

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

Let's say I'm writing a paper where I defend a claim P. P is not the main thesis of the paper but a premise in the main argument. I often find myself giving two or three independent arguments for P, each of which I take to be sufficient. In my mind, this makes a stronger case for P. Even if you don't find one argument compelling, you might find the other ones compelling.

But then what often happens is that referees object to *one* of these arguments for P, and the paper gets rejected. This makes me question this strategy of giving more than one argument for some claim. I wonder if others had a similar experience or have thoughts about this strategy.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

A few points. 1. I would take out any arguments that are weak, even if they support the premise. A weak argument weakens the paper even if not the argument. 2. If all the arguments are strong, you could try nipping this in the bud by being explicit: 'For good measure I will offer three arguments for P, although I think even argument 1 is strong enough' or something. 3. Put the strongest arguments first and last. 4. It might be that the referees reject the paper for other reasons but give you this feedback anyway. That they said what's wrong with this argument doesn't mean that this is why it's being rejected.

These seem like nice suggestions, but I'm curious what others think. Having published a lot, I think that I learned one potentially helpful rule of thumb a while ago: the more you say in a paper, the more likely it is that referees will find something to object to and reject the paper--so, whenever possible, say less. I learned this rule of thumb more or less by having the kinds of experiences the OP reports here. As they note, when they give three arguments for P, it seems like there's always a referee who has a problem with one of them. So, giving more arguments may not be helpful. Maybe the best thing to do is to give one argument, and make sure that it's as convincing as possible.

On that note, here's another rule of thumb that I remember someone telling me at some point: if you have a good argument, more arguments aren't necessary. After all, a sound argument is a sound argument. So, if you have one really good one, why not just give that one and let the others go?

Finally, here's a third rule of thumb that I've learned: don't make stronger claims in a paper than you need to. For the OP: do you really need an argument for P, if P is a premise? Would it be at all possible to simply write in the paper that you're assuming P, that P seems plausible (or should seem plausible to your interlocutors), and then tell your reader that you're going to show that something really cool/important follows? In my experience, this can be good enough, and it obviates the need to actually defend P!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Spring sounds

Where do philosophers read?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an early career reader asks:

Recently, I found myself wondering not just how or when other philosophers read, but where they read. My dissertation supervisor once told me he did all of his reading in bed. I know plenty of folks who read at their desks. Personally, if there is something that I need to read, yet know that it is sitting on my desktop as a PDF and I haven't printed it out yet, then I'm not inclined to read it that day. I don't think I absorb material from the screen, sitting at my desk, as well as I do from the printed page sitting on my couch or in the park. But maybe others have good reasons why reading from the screen at the desk works for them.

So, I'm wondering: Where do you read and why is that your preferred spot?

This is a fun little question. While I sometimes read books on the couch and e-copies of articles on my computer in my home office, I normally tend to read outside at the park that I take my dog to, where I alternate reading at table or walking around. I also sometimes read while taking walks around the neighborhood (while, yes, trying to avoid walking into things, sometimes unsuccessfully!). Walking around with my head buried in a book probably looks a bit strange, but whatever. I spend so much time sedentary in front of my computer writing that it's nice to get up and get moving, and I tend to think better while walking anyway. Finally, I do sometimes read in bed, but I normally reserve that time for intellectually lighter things, such as novels or historical biographies, as I don't like to get my mind too active on philosophical problems at night (I have a sleep disorder which makes it hard enough to sleep as it is!).

Anyway, these are just my reading habits. What are yours, and why?