Reader Poll: How to Get Feedback

One of the most important things I've learned about publishing is how important it is to get good feedback on working papers. Simply put, it is very hard to put together a publishable piece of work all alone. This is not to say it is impossible -- but good feedback helps a great deal. But how does one get it? One obvious way is to make connections with people and trade papers with them. Another way to get feedback is to present at conferences. But sometimes neither of these options present themselves. For example, I know many people inside my AOS, but I just finished a very long paper (one too long for conferences) far *outside* of my AOS, in an area in which I simply don't know anybody. What should one do in this case? I've considered posting the paper on a blog or two, but (A) I've done this before and hardly anyone responded, and (B) it would completely undermine the process of blind review (the paper is out at a journal). Indeed, this brings me to a more general question: how smart/dumb/etc. do people think it is to post (polished) working papers online? I have some papers on SSRN and Academia.edu -- and I tend to operate in the spirit of sharing rather than hiding my work (isn't that what philosophy is all about?) -- but at the end of the day I'm not sure whether this is all that smart. One possible problem is that people can steal ideas (I'm not saying this is common, but it could happen). Another issue is that it undermines blind review. Etc. On the flip side, it's incredibly frustrating to have what one believes to be a great paper on one's hands and keep it a secret. If one doesn't share it, one can get "scooped" (someone else can publish the idea before you do). Certainly sharing online doesn't totally obviate this problem -- someone else can still officially publish an idea before you do -- but at least if you share it online, if there is ever a question of precedence later on down the road, there is still a "paper trail" showing that you got there first.

Anyway, what does everyone think? I'd love to hear what you all think about these issues in general, as well as what you all think about my particular situation (i.e. having a paper on my hands that I think is super-cool, but *very* long, not in my AOS, etc.). Thanks in advance -- looking forward to discussion!

Comments

[Mark Alfano]

My (unsupported) hunch about this stuff is that it's fine to send the paper around by email. I'd be a little more hesitant to post it on my website unless I really thought that it was near-publishable already. About the email method: in my experience senior and rising-star junior scholars are often quite generous about providing feedback, even if you send them an unsolicited message. Say something like, "I'd be very grateful if you were able to find some time in your busy schedule to take a look at this paper," and see what happens. I've had plenty of non-responses and quite a few people tell me they don't have time (fair enough), but then I've also gotten some really good feedback.

[Marcus Arvan]

Thanks, Mark. You're not the first person I've heard that from. I guess I need to be less shy!

[Kyle Whyte]

In terms of SSRN: the folks in law I know who use it avidly say as one of their reasons for doing so that it actually "publishes" one's initial draft, which makes it so that anyone who would steal one's ideas would be doing the same thing as if they stole them from a fully published, polished article in a peer reviewed journal. Plus SSRN provides a citation system, and I see SSRN citations all the time in the references of peer reviewed publications. My thought has been to agree with the legal scholars, which would mean that if one has a really great paper topic, put it up on SSRN. For humanities scholars it's not a great place to get feedback, but it does claim one's original ideas. Doing so certainly, however, spoils one's being blind reviewed. Though from what I can tell, disciplines that use SSRN heavily must have given up on that goal. Plus, for any paper that I've written and presented at at least one conference, even if no version of it is online, it's going to get tracked down by a curious reviewer and the identification will be made.

[Trevor Hedberg]

I imagine this is a common problem for professors. At the University of Tennessee, we recently instituted a research seminar to help faculty members get feedback on papers, particularly those that are much too long for conferences. (Some of those that we've discussed are over 10,000 words.) A professor or lecturer distributes a paper to the department about two weeks in advance of a session. The actual meeting lasts for 90 minutes. There's an assumption that everyone present has already read the paper, so the person presenting only takes about 15-20 minutes to highlight the key points or the areas he or she is most concerned about. The rest of the time is spent discussing the paper with an eye toward helping the author improve it. Sessions occur every 3-4 weeks during the semester.

I'm not sure how feasible this sort of solution would be for smaller departments, though. If you teach at a school with only 2-3 other faculty members and none of them work in your area, this process might not be very helpful.

[David Morrow]

Kyle, I've heard the same thing about SSRN from an economist. He tries to get a draft on SSRN as soon as he can, so that he can "stake out" the idea. He said it was especially important when working from a recently published data set. I guess the analogy would be that if you're working on a particular response to a recently published paper/book, you can lay claim to that response.

Some very minor protection against non-blind peer review would be to circulate things under a working title that differs from the title submitted to the journal.

Here's a variation on Trevor's suggestion: One of the other junior faculty members here at UAB organized a "faculty philosophy club." Two or three of us get together once a week over coffee, beer, lunch, or whatever and talk informally about philosophy. Sometimes we talk about our current projects, sometimes about other things. The only rule is that we can't talk about students, departmental politics, administrators, etc. I've found it to be enormously helpful for my own work, even though the other junior faculty aren't in my AOS.

[Kyle Whyte]

David: Those are good ideas. Regarding feedback within a department, here is what I know. When I was at the University of Memphis, there was a weekly (Fridays, same time, same place) talk given by a doctoral student, faculty, or visitor. Attendance was essentially mandatory, so all faculty and graduate students attended. There were always receptions right after. The feedback perhaps wasn't as good as what Trevor described at UT, mainly because no one saw the papers in any form beforehand, and they were full length presentations. So those outside the AOS didn't seem to always have enough time to absorb the information presented to them. At MSU, there are some informal groups that get together, similar to what David describes, but I don't think meeting as often. One interesting program we have at MSU is called "external connections." It awards junior and associate level faculty a small amount of funds to spend time with a senior scholar in that person's AOS. Money can be spent on attending a few conferences that that person goes to, or actually swapping campus visits. I'm sure programs like this exist elsewhere.

[Marcus Arvan]

Mark: I can't thank you enough for your advice. I tried it and already have a top scholar in the area agree to read the paper!

[Andreas Wolkenstein]

We have something similar to the research seminars mentioned by Kyle and Trevor at the Ethics Center at the University of Tübingen. Members of the Center but also guests can present their papers or ideas. The good thing is that you are also invited to present only rough ideas or outline some thoughts on any philosophical issue you have and that puzzle you. So it is not needed that you have a full (working) paper. Those who attend the seminar which takes place 4-5 times per semester will then discuss the ideas and (try to) give helpful input. Of course this procedure also implies that you do not necessarily have read the papers prior to the seminar so that new ideas or arguments still have to be explained. However, as the program is published at the beginning of the semester, you can choose the talks you are interested in and where you already have a kind of expertise. I pretty much like this kind of event because for me this really represents the core of science: coming together and debating ideas that will then lead to new knowledge. With the internet, of course, things are even getting better because you have the opportunity to discuss your ideas internationally and even attend conferences or give talks without travelling, for instance by using Skype - although I still prefer real travelling.

[Tuomas]

On the issue of whether or not to post stuff online. I tend to post a lot of draft papers online, even relatively unpolished ones. I don't see a big problem with that as I try to make it clear that they are works in progress. Sometimes I do get useful comments like this, but beyond that, it's a sign of being active, and there's a chance that someone organising a conference or editing a volume on the topic will come across your draft...