Our books






Become a Fan

« Bleg: Upper-Level Course on Justice | Main | New Contributor »

10/22/2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

AE-CP

I find the notion of getting "scooped" in philosophy somewhat bizarre. I suppose if you say it happens than I have little reason to doubt you, but it just seems so unlikely that other people are trying to publish *the exact same idea* at the same time that you are. And if the idea is in the same wheelhouse, isn't that *good* for the prospects of your paper? It shows that there's broad interest in what you're working on, and it gives you new material to use in refining your own version of the view. If you really think the paper is great, I think it makes sense to shoot for the top.

elisa freschi

I share a similar concern as AE-CP: If you have done serious research for a paper (say, on free will), the fact that someone shares its conclusions will not detract to the logical argumentation (e.g., considering the phenomenology of free will), preliminary historical investigations (e.g., on similar ideas in the history of philosophy) and epistemological foundation (e.g., discussion of the reliability of the data you use, of possible biases, etc.) of the whole thing.

Nonetheless, I see that waiting for 2 years and possibly being rejected is a high price!

jmugg

Suppose that you do get scooped. Ought you not continue trying to publish that paper? I had some ideas for arguing against Tamar Gendler's 'alief', but then a paper came out basically giving them. So I dropped the idea of writing up the paper.

To my surprise, two or three more papers have come out making very similar arguments. So maybe even if you do get scooped it is OK to try to publish elsewhere. I think this fits with a question we have talked about before: if a small time philosopher publishes a really good argument against a big name philosopher, is the big name philosopher obligated to work out a reply? If several philosophers publish similar arguments against big philosopher's position, then it increases the likelihood that the big philosopher does have an obligation to reply.

Kyle Whyte

There's a difference too depending on whether you're (1) on the market for a tenure system job and (2) in a tenure system job trying to get tenure. In (1), Marcus, didn't you have some interesting data you compiled last year about what journals people generally were publishing in who got tenure system jobs? I can't remember the conclusions that were drawn from that. In (2), I think there is a still dilemma. One answer is that one should publish in journals that are deemed acceptable for tenure in the department. However, if one's career goals are to move on to somewhere else, then one might have to consider publishing in better journals. But then maybe publishing in those better journals will take too long while the tenure clock winds down.

Justin Caouette

Thanks for the post, Marcus. I share similar worries but for slightly different reasons. As a grad student at a non-Leiter ranked program (though ranked in my AOS area) I find it pertinent to get published to secure employment, however, the longer turn-around times at the top are deterring. Given that I will likely be on the market this time next year I will be cutting it quite close if I get rejected and I am forced to resubmit to another journal before my dossier gets sent off to prospective employers.

So, I'm leaning to lower ranked journals with quick turn around time. Then again, I do think that one top journal pub is better than 2 lower ranked journal pubs. Ahhhh....

Scott Clifton

I have faced the same dilemma, but more for reasons reflected in Kyle's and Justin's posts. The need to have peer-reviewed publications on the CV for the job market is more pressing to me than being scooped--even more so, I think than the tenure clock. Unless you've been trying to publish since your third or fourth year in graduate school, you have to get several papers published in the space of just a couple of years. Having them rattle around the top-tier journals for months is generally a gamble that I haven't been willing to make, since losing there is losing big--no significant pubs in peer-reviewed journals--even if winning is winning big. But I also have doubts about the peer-review process at some of the top journals, so I worry that it's not a fair gamble even at that.

Marcus Arvan

Thanks for the comments, everyone!

AE-CP: I think it's much more common than you seem to think. It has happened to me at least a handful of times where someone has published (more or less) exactly the argument I was working on. In some cases (a run-of-the-mill paper) that's not so bad. However, if it's a "big idea" -- one that might make a big contribution to the discipline -- it can be disastrous.

AE-CP, Elisa, & JMugg: granted, sometimes multiple people publish similar papers, but surely it's true that once a paper or two has been published on something, reviewers are likely to think the point is "old hat." In other words, if the paper bounces around for too long, you might get scooped not just by one or two people, but a handful!

Kyle: yes, and the surprising thing was that there didn't seem to be a big difference in terms of getting jobs (people with only non-top-20 pubs didn't seem to do markedly worse than people with top-20 pubs). This is one of the reasons I've steered away from only shooting for top journals!

Justin and Scott: that is of course part of the dilemma as well! I face it all the time. Sending stuff to top journals seems a pretty bad "bet" all around for someone in our position. The turnaround time, probability of rejection, and probability of getting scooped, all stand against it. That being said, actually *getting* an acceptance at a top place is like a winning lottery ticket. Hence, the dilemma!

Cecil Burrow

So the idea of this paper is good enough that a referee is likely to steal it, but yet if it appears in a less than top tier journal you are worried that it will be completely ignored?

Marcus Arvan

Cecil: nobody said anything about referees stealing ideas! The claim was merely that if a paper bounces around journals for a while, *somebody* may publish the same idea first. I take it this can happen even if the paper is good.

Also, your remarks seem to suggest that if an idea is really good, it will automatically get accepted at a great journal. But this is really implausible. Consider Chalmers' and Clark's famous paper in Analysis on the extended mind. They've been open about it being rejected at several top journals, including Phil Review (which takes an average of 4-6 months to review paper) and Mind (which takes well over a year on average). Even great papers can bounce around for a good long time, making getting scooped more likely!

Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa

I think the best way to keep from being scooped is to get on the record with your ideas as early as possible. Long before publishing an idea -- years, maybe -- I'll blog about it or present it at a conference.

Marcus Arvan

Jonathan: interesting, but doesn't that perhaps heighten the chance that someone will inadvertently co-opt the idea? Again, I don't mean outright theft; but what about if someone reads the idea(s), forgets later on -- months or a year or two down the read -- that they read about it, and then writes it up. I don't know if this happens often, but it is a worry, no?

Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa

It's no more risky than publishing, in this respect.

Clement

Use the threat of getting scooped as a motivation to finish/revise papers. Thinking about the possibility greatly helps in overcoming procrastination. But, then, send to the best journal you can.

Rachel

Honestly, very few people have to publish in top journals. Most departments see very little distinction between "top" journals and the rest. Also, most papers that land in top journals won't be read--unless they're good. Good papers get noticed pretty much no matter where they're published.

I really don't know how likely getting scooped is. The only experience I had with it involved my putting in a footnote to show how my view is sufficiently different from the other paper.

What's a "good publishing reputation"? More importantly, why does it matter?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Job-market reporting thread

Current Job-Market Discussion Thread

Philosophers in Industry Directory

Categories

Subscribe to the Cocoon