A Note on Academic Publishing in Philosophy

Helen's recent post contrasting different publication strategies included a number of interesting points. Perhaps the most important point, it seems to me, is the realization that there are different, equally legitimate publication strategies in the first place. Those of us working in areas like history of philosophy or philosophy of science do not stand to profit much from publishing in 'top' general journals (the 'Healy Four' etc.), but we might occasionally still give it a shot (what Helen calls the 'buying a lottery ticket' strategy) -- for example when a paper touches on more general debates.

I've never seen the attraction of what Helen calls the 'waterfall strategy': starting with what one takes to be the top general journals (Phil Review? JPhil?) and then working one's way down. (A colleague of mine recently celebrated the publication, at last, of a -- perfectly good -- paper that had been rejected 24 times!) I might consider adopting this strategy every once in a while (though I've never resubmitted a paper more than four times), but I couldn't imagine myself adopting it as a general rule. Perhaps I just don't have the patience. (However, in a comment to Helen's piece, 'Master Planner' gives us an ironic glimpse of what a possible motivation for the 'waterfall strategy' might look like...)

Helen's post also reminded me of a couple of paragraphs I wrote three years ago, as part of my tenure application, and which I thought I'd share. I'm not sure what people thought of it at the time, but I simply couldn't resist prefacing my research/publication dossier with the following 'Note on Academic Publishing in Philosophy'. (After all, when do you get the -- hopefully undivided -- attention of 8-12 external readers, and possibly a number of non-philosophers at Faculty/University-level committees?)

Philosophy, more so than other disciplines in the arts and social sciences, has largely avoided the ‘publish or perish’ model of academic publishing. Perhaps because of the comparatively small size of the discipline, or because of its focus on debating ideas rather than documenting results, the philosophical community tends to rely more on qualitative judgments than on quantitative measures to assess the research activity of its members. This is not to say that philosophy as an academic discipline has been immune against the distorting effects of rankings and other metrics. Thus, contemporary academic philosophy in my opinion gives too much weight to journals that can boast of a high rejection rate, but are sometimes badly run. Non-philosophers are often not aware that turn-around times for submitted papers at would-be ‘top journals’ can be up to a year before the first (!) set of referees’ comments, and accepted papers often take two or more years to appear in print.

In my own work, I aim to contribute to ongoing debates in philosophy – or, in the best of all scenarios, spark a debate by putting my ideas out there. Because of this, I aim to publish in journals that have responsible editorial practices (for example, because they have a policy of returning referees’ reports within four months), are internationally peer-reviewed and widely accessible (incl. electronically), and reach the relevant target audience. I would much rather have my papers discussed by other scholars than stuck in the backlog of a journal whose primary claim to superiority is its marginally higher rejection rate.

I did hedge my bets somewhat by adding a final paragraph outlining how many of my papers appeared in highly-ranked journals, at least by the lights of the (flawed -- but aren't they all?) European Reference Index to the Humanities -- which seemed to be the most 'official' source at the time, keeping in mind that tenure dossiers also need to make a convincing case to non-philosophers sitting on promotion and tenure committees (at least at my university...).

(I can't say whether it's a wise strategy everywhere to use one's tenure dossier as a platform for opinionated statements, but happily on this occasion it didn't seem to do any harm.)

Comments

[shane wilkins]

I'm not sure I agree that folks who work in history of philosophy don't have much to gain from publishing in top-5ish journals. I work in medieval philosophy and I can think of a number of really good medievalists who have published work in top-5 journals: Marilyn McCord Adams, Bob Pasnau, Cal Normore, Eleonore Stump, Norman Kretzmann. These are all folks whom I could imagine someone who wasn't already committed to medieval philosophy reading, enjoying and finding valuable.

That kind of thing helps put smaller sub disciplines, like medieval on the map. And I'd guess that if one is trying to demonstrate to a search committee that one is not only a solid citizen in a sub-discipline, but also some kind of leader, then publication in big generalist journals would suggest that kind of potential.

That's why I still adopt something like a waterfall strategy, even though a large part of my work is in history of philosophy.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Axel: Great post, and I'm largely in agreement.

Another reason I think the 'waterfall strategy' can backfire is that, a lot of times, other people in the discipline are working on similar ideas--so, if your paper is stuck at some top-ranked journal(s) for a couple of years, someone else may publish something similar first, making it *more* difficult to publish your piece (since reviewers may then take the point you are trying to defend as already having been defended). This is particularly problematic, I think, given reasonable doubts about how 'anonymized' review processes truly are. (I, for one, have heard many people say it is easier to publish once one is better known and other people who matter know what you're working on).

I've also had some truly awful experiences with reviewers at a few journals lately, in one case receiving a single-sentence brush-off by a reviewer without any detailed rationale for rejection. I see little reason to continue sending papers to journals that allow such kind of stuff to occur. When I do reviews, I do my utmost to give a conscientious, several-page review--and if a journal does not hold reviewers of my own paper to reasonable standards, then I see little reason to waste my time with them again.

I also think one can get one's papers read, even if one doesn't publish them in top-ranked places, though doing so can take some "self-promotion" that not everyone is comfortable with (personally, I have no problem with it. If I spend years on a paper, I sure as heck *am* going to promote it. I don't want years of work to go to waste!).

All that being said, there is of course a reason why people pursue the waterfall strategy. As commenters here and elsewhere have said before, there seems to be an unfortunate tendency among some to only read and discuss papers that appear in "top journals." For better or (more likely) worse, this seems to be a part of the game. Unless one publishes in top places, there appear to some (many?) people out there who won't take your work seriously.

[Axel Gelfert]

Thanks, Shane, for your comment. I guess what I should have said is that, in my opinion, those of us working in areas with established, well-regarded and widely distributed specialist journals have not as much to gain as one might think from publishing in top-5ish journals. I like your point about putting subdisciplines 'on the map' by publishing in top general journals; this is a point I hadn't considered before and provides a good rationale for occasionally trying one's luck with one of the big general journals. In my comments on Helen's earlier post, I also noted that, as a postdoc, I made it a point to get a couple of papers out in decent (though not 'top-5') general journals such as Synthese and Ratio, partly for the reason you mention: trying to demonstrate that one isn't overly specialized. I think this makes a lot of sense. (Ironically, the LEMM bias of several of the top journals means that some people get away with being extremely specialized while at the same time publishing in supposedly 'general' journals...).

Marcus: I fully agree with you. It does take some effort to draw attention to articles in more specialized (and less highly ranked) journals. I have found it very useful to send pdfs of the papers to a small number of people who might be interested. In one case, a paper I wrote for a journal that doubles as a yearbook (and which isn't, as far as I can tell, widely read) led to a couple of conference invitations, a reprint in another book, an invitation to a summer school, and to a small workshop with a PhD student whom my Department later decided to hire. All because I made the effort to send the paper to a dozen people or so!

[Shane Wilkins]

I actually agree with a lot of what Axel has written here, so I don't want to give the opposite impression by chiming in a second time with a negative comment. But, I see a lot of talk at the Cocoon, NewAPPS, and the smoker about how irresponsible top journals are, and I think that paints with a little too broad of a brush. Not all top journals are badly run, and not all smaller, specialist journals are well-run.

For instance, Philosophical Quarterly has always been really fast (<2 months). Australasian has been fast (3mos) and has given me really great comments. JAPA was amazingly fast (6 weeks) and gave me great comments. On the other hand, I've also submitted to a couple of specialist journals that either desk rejected me after 4 months with no comments or took nearly a year to get me a set of comments back.

I don't disagree with the generic claim that philosophy's publication model is really a pain in the butt. What I disagree with is the claim that this is more likely to be true of generalist journals rather than specialist ones. There are well and poorly run journals of both types, and I don't see anecdotally that the proportions are different.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Shane: Thanks for chiming in! I agree. It's important to recognize journals with good editorial and reviewing practices. I too have had good experiences with Phil Quarterly, AJP, and JAPA. I've found that all three of them tend to have good turnaround times, and at least sometimes forward detailed reviewer comments. I've also had relatively good experiences with the Philosophical Review.

[Axel Gelfert]

It seems to me that editorial practices for a number of top journals have improved significantly since the time I wrote the passage I quote in my post, most dramatically so in the case of 'Mind', which had a reputation for sometimes taking a year to get back to authors; now their OUP website states that they take on average 44 days (which seems very fast and may be the result of more desk rejections) and aim to provide final decisions within four months. Other top journals, like Phil Quarterly, have long been well-run, with timely decisions and fairly detailed referee's reports. And let's not forget that there are also some badly run second/third-tier journals! But on the whole, I think we are seeing some improvements as a discipline.