Our books






Become a Fan

« On writing to music | Main | New Contributor: Guglielmo Feis »

05/15/2014

Comments

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

Dan Dennis

Good idea.

I wonder whether it should be coupled with journals being prepared to add notes to already published papers (they could do it online at least).

So if paper 1 by person X is published in philpapers with idea I and then paper 2 by person Y appears in Phil Review also containing idea I then Phil Review would subsequently add to Paper 2 a note saying that idea I was already published first by person x... (Or, if it is not the same idea but an idea with some similarities, that should have been cited, then stating that)...

BTW Some journals already state when the paper was first received - that's a good idea...

Guglielmo Feis

Good idea.

What about www.academia.edu as a further element in the corpus-used-to-establih-priority? (Or maybe also www.researchgate.net even if I have the impression it is less used).

The next step (on which I have no idea) is: such an inclusion can be counted and monitored by google scholar or similar devices? I mean: we want citations that can be measured, don't we?

Assaf Weksler

Marcus, thanks for posting about and engaging with my query!

Let me focus on the scooping issue, setting aside citation practices for the moment (you and Dan raise excellent ideas about that). You suggest that we should treat philpapers as establishing priority, and I couldn’t agree more. But what does this come down to in practice? Is it a matter of *deciding* to treat philpapers this way, or does it involve something else, or in addition?

One practical change that comes to might concerns the format of written bibliographic items. At the moment, when a paper is posted online and is not published or forthcoming at some journal, it is cited in the following format: “author name (manuscript)” instead of “author name (year)”, and we also indicate the date the manuscript was downloaded (and not the date it was posted), and of course we do not indicate a venue of publication.

If publishing at philpapers is really publishing, for the purposes of priority issues, then perhaps we should cite like this: “author name(year), archived at philpapers”. Also, perhaps after publication, we should somehow retain the original date of posting to philpapers, like this: “author name(year), journal-name, issue, pages, first posted on philpapers on [year].” So if one waits 6 years for peer-review to run its course, it will still be clear who made the discovery first. Does this make sense?

Guglielmo: it seems that citations of unpublished work from personal websites and philpapers is tracked by Google Scholar, see for example the second item here.

Marcus Arvan

Hi Guglielmo: Thanks for your comment. I guess I want to say that philpapers should be the "gold standard." It is, after all, the single biggest open-access repository of philosophical papers on the planet. If you want priority, post there. Having a more diffuse norm (viz. philpapers OR academia.edu OR SSRN, etc.) just seems to me too broad. Let's all just agree to a disciplinary norm: if it's on philpapers first, it gets priority -- and hopefully, Chalmers and Bouquet can set up the kind of "Thesis-defended-by-date-uploaded" categorization system that would help it work!

Assaf: Thanks for your comment, and for submitting the query! I think that makes perfect sense. I'd very much like to see Chalmers and Bourquet implement that kind of system -- and then have a kind of disciplinary standard (officially sanctioned by the APA) to treat priority that way.

Guglielmo Feis

Marcus: even if I joined philpapers because of the cocoon and I'm editing the OIC entry I'm not so sure it should be the "gold standard" for philosophers. The others two have some options the former lacks (mainly in terms of stats you can have as an author).
Nonetheless, I agree we can use it as a "gold standard" for the priority issue. Still, I have some worries due to philpapers going towards a subscription model... will it still be "as open" as before?

Assaf: thanks. I wanted to point out that not all the citations of your works find their way into scholars. At least, that is not my case (and I know how to add my works on scholars, not their being cited elsewhere).
Anyway, the problem is solved if the citing work and the cited work are both on philpapers.

I think the objection that remains before setting this "gold standard" is: can philpapers survive becoming our arxiv or far too many drafts or not-yet-published-on-"standard"-journals-papers will overload both editors and servers?
[Note: understanding how the "standard" journals work is quite difficult if you are not training into it, i.e. if you are not from US or UK. But that's another story]

Marcus Arvan

Guglielmo: Could you clarify what you mean when you say that "the other two have some options that the former lacks (mainly in terms of stats you can have as an author)"? I'm just not sure what you mean, or why you're not sure it should be the gold standard.

David Bourget

We'd certainly be willing to equip PhilPapers with further tools to help manage scooping-related issues.

Re the concern about subscriptions, everyone will continue to have free access to PhilPapers from home. Also, the PhilPapers Archive is separate and will remain open access no matter what.

Marcus Arvan

Hi David: Thanks for taking the time to comment. I do hope philpapers implements some such tools. Do you have any idea which tools you might use? In any case, please do keep us informed!

Guglielmo Feis

Marcus: Sorry for the late reply. Here I go clarifying. I agree on PhilPapers being the gold standard for this scooping-issue..
I think this does not imply that, as a philosopher, you can do everything with philpapers only (maybe you can, but you need to be in US or UK...).
Academia lets you know about the keywords that bring people to your work, which I find quite useful. Researchgate has some features of reporting impact factor and endorsing skills (I still have no opinion of how useful they are).

David: thank you for these clarification on PhilPapers and the Archive.

Last worry: can uploading a submitted paper on the PhilPapers archive somehow compromise a blind review? [My tentative answer is “no!”, but it’s a fact that none of the paper I have under submission are on the philpapers archive]

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.)

Subscribe to the Cocoon

Job-market reporting thread

Current Job-Market Discussion Thread

Philosophers in Industry Directory

Categories

Subscribe to the Cocoon