Ways to improve philosophical engagement?

According to this study (see especially the charts on p. 4),

1. More than 90% of published humanities papers have received no citations two years after publication.
2. About 82% have never been cited five years after publication.
3. Citation rates in the humanities have been consistently this low across the past several decades.

In contrast,

1. Over 50% of natural science and social science papers receive at least one citation within two years.
2. About 70% receive at least one citation after five years.
3. Citation-rates in both areas have climbed dramatically and steadily over the past several decades.

To me, these comparisons are very depressing. If you work in the natural sciences or social sciences, chances are your work will be cited and/or discussed in the literature. However, if you work in the humanities, chances are it won't. This means that, currently, the vast majority of us spend months, even years, of our lives working tirelessly on papers and books that we think matter (or should matter) that no one ever cites, let alone engages with. Which is rather disheartening, to say the least. Of course, one possibility is that 80-90% of humanities papers are terrible, and not worth citing/discussing. Yet, while I have actually heard people say things like this, I have a hard time believing it. Philosophers are a rather smart bunch of people--and it seems to me that I read good papers all the time that are never discussed.

What could be done to improve this situation--done, that is, to incentivize broader, more inclusive philosophical engagement? I'm not sure, but let me brainstorm out loud a bit:

A. Increase journal space for replies to articles in other journals?: One thing I find a bit curious is that while philosophy journals often seem to accept full-length articles that are critical of the work of well-known names (there are, for instance, countless articles replying to/criticizing the work of people like Rawls, Parfit, etc.!), journals don't generally tend to accept "replies"/discussion notes to papers that appear in other journals. Typically, journals only accept direct replies to articles in their own pages. But this, it seems to me, dramatically disincentivizes engagement with others' ideas.

As Thom Brooks points out on pp. 19-20 of his Publishing Guide for Graduate Students, "The big shortcoming of being in the reply business is that if your reply is rejected, then you may well be snookered: all reputable journals have policies against publishing replies to articles in rival journals." Why engage with another person's paper at all if the only place you can submit a critical reply is one journal (the journal in which it appeared)?

Consequently, it seems to me, if we want to increase engagement with others' philosophical ideas (and I believe we should), this seems to me one place to start: journals should change their editorial policies to encourage replies to articles in other journals. I know, I know: there's a reason why journals don't allow replies--it increases the citation rates of rival journals, making one's rival journal "more competitive" (something which, for obvious reasons, a self-interested journal might not want to do!). But this seems to me a really cynical ploy, one predicated on a false "zero-sum game" assumption. It seems to me that all journals would benefit from increasing cross-journal citations--for it would plausibly get most journals read, and engaged with, more than now.

B. Incentivize replies to articles within journals with new online presentation formats?: Another thing I find a bit curious is how little the internet has led academic publishers to rethink the entire manner of presenting peer-reviewed work (actually, I'm not that surprised. Old habits die slowly!). Allow me to briefly explain what I mean. As of now, most journals still have "issues" (i.e. January 2016, Fall 2016, etc.). Each issue contains some number of articles, book reviews, discussion notes, etc. And, once an issue is issued, there it is: you have to wait for the next issue! But why? Here's an alternative model that might increase philosophical engagement:

1. Publish traditional journal issues: with traditional articles, discussion notes, etc., but then

2. Keep each journal issue "live"--publishing peer-reviewed replies/discussion notes inside the already-published issue on an ongoing basis. So for instance, if you were to visit, say, the Fall 2014 issue of some journal, that issue might list articles A, B, and C, but also include, on an continually updated basis, a subheading with "replies" to articles A, B, and C (so that anyone who views those original articles can also view, and potentially add to, an ongoing critical response to those articles).

It seems to me that a new format like this might dramatically enliven philosophical discussion and debate. It might encourage people to reply to articles within a given journal, and, by publishing all of those replies in the same place, lead to a kind of evolving "critical consensus" in the journal's pages on the very articles that journal publishes (as one could read through a series of critical responses to a given article, but also add to that list of responses oneself, by writing a reply of one's own!). Of course, this new model might dramatically increase the workload on editors and reviewers (as replies might begin to flood into journals!)...but I think there are probably creative ways this could be handled (e.g. limit on submissions, a requirement for submitters to be willing to serve as reviewers, different editorial practices for replies--such as "thumbs up, thumbs down" verdicts, etc.).

C. Book-symposium journals, perhaps associated with the APA, with an ongoing peer-reviewed "reply" feature?: I couldn't help but notice how many book symposia are scheduled at the upcoming Pacific APA. This seems really cool to me, and I think it would be awesome if some number of symposia were set aside at each APA for both (A) well-known, senior authors, but also (B) lesser-known, junior authors. Additionally, however, I'm curious why there isn't anything like a journal dedicated to book symposia (is there one I'm unaware of?).

Currently, there are two ways for a newly published book to get discussed: book reviews, and traditional journal articles. Yet, journals being what they are, it is plausibly more difficult for junior authors to get articles on their book published in journals. Indeed, aside from official "book reviews", journal articles on books by junior authors are far less common than journal articles on books by well-known authors. Why? The most obvious answer is that well-known authors are well-known, so of course their books tend to get discussed more. A second obvious possibility is that books by well-known authors tend to be better, and hence more deserving of discussion (viz. well-known authors are well-known for a reason!). Yet there are other possible explanations for why articles on books by well-known people might get more discussion in journals than books by junior authors. One is the biases/predilections of journal reviewers and editors (How so? Well, not too long ago, I actually had a paper at a journal rejected, at least in part, because the reviewer had never heard of the author I was replying to, and who didn't think readers of the journal had probably read their work either!).

It seems to me that right here might be a perfect place for a new type of journal--a book symposium journal--to step into the fold. What if there were a journal devoted entirely to book symposia (author summaries of their books, along with 3-5 critical commentaries)? What if, in addition to that, readers could submit follow-up commentaries for peer-review, along the lines of the proposal I mentioned earlier (i.e. where the new commentaries might be appended to the original commentaries in the original "journal issue").

Anyway, I'm just brainstorming here. Perhaps none of these are good ideas. But I'd like to suggest that this kind of brainstorming might be worthwhile. I can't help but think it is a shame that so many good papers, and books, currently go undiscussed or underdiscussed. Perhaps some creative thinking might enable us change this for the better, improving the depth, breadth, and inclusiveness of philosophical engagement. What do you all think? Do you have any ideas?

Comments

[Shane J. Ralston]

Marcus,

I like your ideas, especially the book symposium journal idea. It sort of reminds me of Philosophy in Review, but more interactive. If you're serious about it, I'd be game for helping. Contact me.

I would be in favor of pushing journal editors to give scholars a right of reply, meaning that if someone who writes an article containing an interpretation of your theory or argument seriously distorts it (straw person?), you have a right to respond to them in print (or maybe in a special online forum the journal has created for that purpose).

I have only once insisted that I had such a right. Bob Talisse had written a paper that appeared in Metaphilosophy. I thought his account seriously mangled my original argument. I wrote to the editors of Metaphilosophy and told them why I thought I should be allowed to respond. They were nice enough to acknowledge my request. Their message went basically like this: you can write a response but we won't guarantee that it will be published. Maybe they were just saying that what I would write would be subjected to peer review. But what it seemed like they were saying is, you're not good enough to publish in the pages of our journal, so if you think you're going to sneak something in its pages as a response, then you're dreadfully wrong.

I never wrote the response. Why waste my time if what I write will probably be rejected because I'm not among the pedigree of scholar they'd expect to publish in their journal? The elitism of academic philosophy strikes again!

[anti-elitist]

Shane,
You certainly do not have a right to have whatever you write published in a journal, even as a response piece. But, given the account you gave, it seems the journal was open to reviewing a response piece by you. So this is not elitism. That is a very serious charge and it should be made cautiously, and with adequate evidence supporting the claim.

[Trevor Hedberg]

Based on some recent email exchanges I have had with other members of the profession, there are already plans for a journal focused on book discussion. A journal known as Syndicate Philosophy is slated to launch before the end of 2016 and will serve as the philosophical parallel to the religious studies journal Syndicate Theology. From Syndicate Theology's website:

"Syndicate uses recent publications in theological studies as a point of departure for addressing and engaging open questions in contemporary theology and ethics. It is not a book review journal. It is not a standard peer-review journal. It is not a 'theology and culture' journal that seeks to make theology relevant to broad audiences. It is an online forum for scholars to comment on each other’s work and explore big ideas outside of the highly scripted spaces of contemporary academics."

Assuming Syndicate Philosophy adopts a similar structure, the entire journal will revolve around book symposiums. Hopefully, its upcoming launch will help fill this gap in the profession.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Shane: I'm glad to hear that you like some of the ideas! As I recently wrote on this blog, I would *love* to start a journal someday. I just don't think I have the time and resources to do it at the present time. Hopefully in a few years that will change. Perhaps I will shoot you an email if/when that time comes, to see if you are still interested. :)

In terms of a "right to respond", I think it's an interesting idea--but I worry that giving authors such a right (without approval through peer-review) might be counterproductive. Why shouldn't an author's response have to pass peer-review, convincing reviewers and journal editors that the response in, in fact, a good one? I take it that your concern is that, when it comes to low-prestige authors, reviewers and editors might have biases *against* publishing such reviews. Still, I'm not sure that the "cure" you are suggesting would be an improvement. How about something weaker: namely, an editorial commitment--by reviewers and editors--to give author replies to critique a fair hearing regardless of whether an author is high prestige or low prestige?

Also, like 'anti-elitest', I'm not sure from the account you gave that there was elistism at work here. I don't think it would have occurred to me, if I were in that position, that there might be something untoward about the editors' response--as I think I would just assume that of course all submissions have to be peer-reviewed. Was there any particular reason (beyond them saying it would be peer-reviewed) why you thought your reply wouldn't have been taken seriously (by reviewers and the editors) had you submitted it? I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm just curious why you thought that it seemed like they wouldn't give your piece a fair hearing!

[Justin Caouette]

Hi Marcus,

I think all of these suggestions are very good!

I have a piece where I respond to an argument in Phil Review but am having a hard time finding a home for it because Phil Review does not do review pieces. I find this practice odd, especially at top journals. If the journal sees themselves as providing an avenue to share top notch research wouldn't they also want to provide space to engage with that scholarship? If it's important, then why not allow for responses?

Hear is another proposal: have a quarterly response issue where the journal produces ONLY responses to previous work done *in that journal*. If all journals (or most) did this then this would promote a practice that lends itself to close engagement at *that journal* by those who have published there as well as spike citations to work already sitting stagnant. It's similar to your (C) proposal but for journal articles instead of books.

In any event, something should change. It's a mess.