The Philosophers' Cocoon

Transformative experience bibliography

I have been commissioned to complete an encyclopedia entry on transformative experience, and could use a little crowdsourced help. First, I could use some help filling out my working bibliography. Is there anything missing from my reference list that I should include?  Please do feel free to let me know in the comments section below! Also, due to lack of institutional access, I have been unable to download the following papers. So, if you have a copy and wouldn't mind forwarding one to [email protected], I would be very appreciative (I'll cross the relevant papers of the list if/when I obtain them).

• Briggs, R. (2015). Transformative Experience and Interpersonal Utility Comparisons. Res Philosophica 92 (2):189-216.
• Chang, R. (2015). Transformative Choices. Res Philosophica 92 (2):237-282.
• Dougherty, T.; Horowitz, S. & Sliwa, P. (2015). Expecting the Unexpected. Res Philosophica 92 (2):301-321
• Harman, E. (2015). Transformative Experiences and Reliance on Moral Testimony. Res Philosophica 92 (2):323-339.
• Kauppinen, A. (2015). What's So Great about Experience? Res Philosophica 92 (2):371-388.
• Paul, L. A. (2015). Transformative Choice: Discussion and Replies. Res Philosophica 92 (2):473-545.

Many thanks in advance to anyone and everyone who chimes in/helps out! :) 

Rejection letters & brutal reviews of famed works

Following our recent discussion of whether our system of 'anonymized' peer-review should be changed, I have an idea for a little project I'd like to pursue. One thing that would be helpful for me in pursuing the project--and which I think might independently be a little bit of good fun--would be to collect cases of rejection letters, brutal reviews, and other negative reactions by specialists to works that later went on to enjoy great fame and achieve lasting influence.

During a recent trip to Oxford, at a museum exhibit on JRR Tolkien I came across an astonishing peer-reviewer letter of Tolkien's work that ended, "...On that note alone I am afraid this is not even worth considering." This got me thinking of how many other great works met a similar fate. So I did a little poking around online, and here are are just a few famous rejection letters and brutal peer-reviewer comments I came across with a simple web search:

Rejection letter for Ursula Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness (Nebula and Hugo-award winning work)

Ursula K. Le Guin writes extremely well, but I'm sorry to have to say that on the basis of that one highly distinguishing quality alone I cannot make you an offer for the novel. The book is so endlessly complicated by details of reference and information, the interim legends become so much of a nuisance despite their relevance, that the very action of the story seems to be to become hopelessly bogged down and the book, eventually, unreadable. The whole is so dry and airless, so lacking in pace, that whatever drama and excitement the novel might have had is entirely dissipated by what does seem, a great deal of the time, to be extraneous material. My thanks nonetheless for having thought of us. The manuscript of The Left Hand of Darkness is returned herewith. Yours sincerely, 

The Editor 

Saturday sounds

Query on interdisciplinary job-marketeering

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, VAP of X at a SLAC writes:

My PhD is in philosophy, but my background in cognate field X is sufficiently strong that I'm now a VAP of X at a SLAC. I expect that at a handful of schools, separate tenure-track jobs may be advertised this year in both philosophy and in X. I'd like to apply to both jobs when that occurs, but I can foresee upsides and downsides of that strategy, and I'd like advice on how to maximize the upsides and minimize the downsides.

The main upsides I see are that I can teach interdisciplinary courses, conduct research with faculty members and students across disciplines, and foster student and faculty dialogue across disciplines. The main downside I see is being perceived as a unique kind of flight risk. Philosophers might think that I'll either leave for a job in X or, worse yet, use up a line in their department while only really contributing to X. Members of the department of X might have the reciprocal thought.

Am I overthinking this, overlooking other concerns, or both? And do you have any advice on how to navigate this situation? Thanks!

Good questions. I'm not very sure on what the best answers to them might be, but here are a few thoughts...

Reader query on choosing a PhD program

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, AnonMA writes:

When choosing which PhD program to attend, is it more advantageous to choose a program based on the reputation of one's (presumed) advisor, or based on the reputation of the program itself? That is, when considering future employment prospects, is it more important that one's advisor/letter writer is a "star" scholar in their specialty, or is it more important that the overall rank of the program where one receives one's PhD is high? I am a recent MA who is interested in some PhD programs in philosophy that boast "star" scholars but not high overall rank.

I think this is a great query, one many prospective PhD students are likely to have--and I am curious to hear what readers think. My own initial reaction, to be frank, is to question a presupposition the questions seem to be based on: namely, that reputation (of a program or advisor) is the best way for prospective students to think about which PhD program to enter or what their "future employment prospects" are. Allow me to explain, and then give a more direct answer to AnonMA's query.

Reader query on solving a two-body problem

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you? thread, 'Anonymous associate professor' writes:

I'm not sure this has come up yet on the blog. If so just ignore. I'm an associate professor, and have some name recognition in my AOS. 

After several years on the market, my partner is still struggling in VAPs, postdocs, adjunct positions and so forth. My school didn't offer a partner hire and as I am in the UK they don't have such a policy. There was the idea of a new tenure-track line opening a while back, when he was a temporary lecturer there, but now our school is facing drastic cuts including in admin and library support, and things are much likely to get worse. 

For these and other reasons, and also because our 2-body problem remains unsolved, I am looking to move, and am hoping that we can solve it this time (I would be looking to move in any case because of the financial difficulties our school faces). Any tips on how we can solve the 2 body problem best much appreciated. 

In particular:
- How do we look for jobs? Should he look for tenure-track jobs and should we then try to negotiate a tenured hire for me (I've been associate prof for 3 years, and quite frankly, would rather not restart the tenure clock). Or should I look for tenured jobs and try to negotiate a tenure track for him?
- There are right now 2 positions that are open rank and that fit our respective AOS. Should we somehow mention that in our letter? Or just apply and see what happens? (Without 2 positions we cannot realistically move there - the salary, even if I manage to negotiate the top of the salary band, is not good enough for a one-income family to survive on. I've made inquiries with people who live in the area and they told me this).

Great questions, ones I suspect many other people face in various guises (as I myself have known more than a few people with two-body issues). Unfortunately, I have to confess that Ireally have no clue on what the answers are.

Anyone with experience in these matters willing to weigh in?

Reader query on finding CC and foreign jobs

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Tom writes:

So, you've had posts on this before, but I would love it if we did it again:

Where, other than philjobs, should I go to look for philosophy jobs? More specifically:

o If I want to job at a community college, where do I find them advertised?
o If I want a job in Italy, where are those posted?
o How about it I want a job in India?
o etc.

Anyone who can answer any one of these questions will be doing us all a huge favor. Answers of the form `here is a link to several job descriptions' are also waaaaay more appreciated than answers of the form `you have to look hard', since having examples of what I'm looking for often helps making the search easier.

This is a really great query. I expect a fair number of candidates don't even apply to a lot of good community college and foreign jobs simply out of ignorance of their existence. And indeed, as a former job-candidate, I know I didn't apply for many of these jobs because I didn't know where they are advertised.

In reply to Tom's query, Nick Z. wrote:

Most community college jobs are posted on HigherEdJobs and the Chronicle. Even this late in the summer there are two full-time teaching positions posted at the former, one in Buffalo, NY, and the other in Plano, TX. (Both positions are made even more attractive by their proximity to the border, just in case the political, social, and economic conditions of the US get even crazier.) Philjobs rarely posts community college positions.

Nick Z.'s suggestions are helpful, but still, I wonder whether it is true that "most" CC job are advertised in those venues, and it's still unclear to me where most foreign jobs are advertised. Although I don't know for sure, I have to believe there are far more philosophy jobs in Continental Europe, South America, Asia, and elsewhere that aren't advertised on any of the above websites (I've recently met philosophers who work in places like Colombia, Spain, and Sweden, yet I don't recall seeing jobs in those places advertised on the above websites).

Anyone have any insight on these matters? Tom suggested that I might throw up another side-bar on the Cocoon where people could list jobs not advertised on philjobs, and I think this might be a good thing to do. But it would also be helpful, I think, if people just knew where to look for such jobs themselves!

Queries: going on the market from a TT job

UPDATED: comments now open!

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, two readers wrote in with slightly different questions about heading on the job-market when one already has a TT job. First, Tenure a-comin' wrote:

I go up for tenure this year, and am going on the job market because I'm pretty scared about the future of my current state university. I've heard some people say that you should make clear in your cover letter when applying to any TT job that you're willing to start over from scratch - but I'm not. I want my current pubs counted, and I want to cut at least several years off the tenure clock. Given that I'm not willing to start from scratch, should I address this in cover letters at all? What about when/if people ask about it in interviews?

Similarly, Anonymous TT prof wrote:

I too will be going on the market from a TT job. It would be great to have a thread with advice about how to carefully do this. As Tenure a-comin' asked, should I provide some sort of explanation in my cover letter as to why I am applying out? When (if at all) should I tell my colleagues? Have others had to manage being on the job market and a search committee at the same time?

Notice there's a difference between these two queries. The first reader is going on the market while coming up for tenure, whereas Anonymous TT prof didn't mention that. Let's assume for the sake of discussion, then, that Anon TT prof isn't coming up for tenure, but just wants to move from one TT post to another. Does this make a difference as to what one should do? I think it very well could...

Reader query on unconventional teaching practices

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" post, gradstudent14 writes:

I'm planning to go on the job market next year, and lately I've been thinking about my teaching statement. I know that it's often said to be a good thing to stand out here, to make sure that you don't sound like every other candidate. And I suspect that I do, indeed, stand out here. Yet I also worry whether some aspects of my teaching philosophy and pedagogy are simply *too* radical, such that they'll scare search committees off. For example, I don't require attendance in my classes, nor do I require that students do the suggested readings (I don't give reading quizzes or assign homework on the readings). Nor do my classes have any required papers or other assignments. Rather, students may turn in a variety of different kinds of work (papers, posts on the class blog, presentations, podcasts, an optional exam, etc.), and the number of points they get for a given submission depends on factors like the kind of work it is, how long it is, and its quality. A student's final grade for the course is based on how many points she's accumulated by the course's end. There's essentially only one due date for students' work, and it's at the very end of the course. Before that due date, there's no limit to the number of submissions a student can turn in.

There are of course other aspects I could mention, but the above should give a basic picture of the structure that I prefer in my courses. When I talk to others about this way of structuring a course, often the initial reaction is to think that I must be crazy. People seem to be particularly struck by the absence of an attendance requirement and of a requirement that students do the readings. The message I get is "In a class like that, no one's going to show up, no one's going to read any of the readings, and no one's going to do any work." (As a side-note, such predictions have not been borne out by my experience thus far. While I'm still in the middle of teaching my first class, so far I've been quite impressed with the level of initiative students have shown...)...

Once I get a chance to explain my rationale for structuring a course in this way, I've found that people's disbelief often becomes a bit more tempered. But it's the initial reaction, the moment of being taken aback, that worries me when it comes to search committees. I worry that my preferred pedagogy will make me seem too "weird," too much of a risk, and that it'll be difficult to give as full or convincing a justification of it within the confines of a teaching statement as I could in a longer document or in person. And so, not that I suspect the question has a simple or easy answer, but I thought I'd nevertheless ask: When it comes to a teaching statement, how radical is too radical?

This is a really great query! I am very curious to hear other readers' reactions, but here are my own, speaking as someone who has served on three search committees.

Reader query on editing a special issue

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" post, JR writes:

Is it worth to edit a special issue for a journal? I was accepted (I contacted the journal myself) to co-edit a special issue (with a more senior colleague) for good specialised journal. The topic is something I have myself published and reviewed for.

I assume there is quite a lot of work to do, but what are the potential benefits? Publishing is must to get a job (I have done that and continue doing it) peer-reviewing and writing book reviews, on the other hand, seem to have almost zero benefits in the job market. So what about co-editing a journal issue? Is it worth doing it? (I am doing it anyway because I think it is itself valuable thing to do and something I am very much looking forward to). But perhaps others have some ideas or experience regarding this.

Good question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. My own sense is that there is no simple answer to this question, and that it probably depends on the totality of one's situation. Allow me to explain.

Reader query on teaching an undergrad seminar

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" post, UKgraduate writes:

I am a graduate student being given my first opportunity to design and teach a course in September. The course is a 4th year undergraduate seminar, and I am somewhat daunted by the task. If the course was lecture format I would feel confident that I could fill all of the space each day, but because of the seminar format (minimal lecturing) the success of the course is going to come down to whether or not my students are keen to engage with the material and to enter into dialogue in class.

I am wondering if anybody has tips for approaching seminars that help to get students engaged. I've tried to build some things into the syllabus that encourage / require this: in particular, I am requiring students to provide questions / comments about each week's readings online before seminar begins, so that we can discuss them as a group. But are there any other tips that others have for me?

Great question! I've never taught in the UK, so I don't know what the culture and expectations there are like. However, I have taught upper-division undergrad seminars in the US every semester for the past 9 years, so I can say what has worked for me.

How can we help you? (July 2018)

I'm going to be away in Oxford the rest of this week beginning, so posting this week might be a bit light. In the meantime, I thought it might be good to run one of our 'how can we help you?' posts.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss (and hopefully help you with!) your query.

Given that the academic job-market will be ramping up the next month or so, and given that people will be starting new jobs, grad programs, and so on, please do feel free to ask about these things and other topics including:

• Job-market questions/concerns
• Tips for starting a new job or grad program
• Publishing
• Teaching
• The profession
• Etc.

Basically, if you could use help with something, just say so in the comments section below! 

A.I. ethics piece at Medium

My first stab at public philosophy, "We're programming A.I. psychopaths - and how to avoid it", is now up at Medium. Hope you all find it interesting!

Resubmitting a paper to the same journal?

In the comments section of my post suggesting journals should consider expanding their policies on the lengths of papers they are willing to place under review, Pendaran wrote: 

I agree there aren’t many outlets for long papers and that this can make publishing a long paper difficult. However...You can send a paper back to the same journal as long as a year or so has passed and it has been substantially revised. I’ve done it. I’ve even had a paper rejected by journal A and then a year later eventually accepted. So, why couldn’t you just circulate your long paper through the few journals that will consider it? 

This is something I've often wondered about, and which few (if any) journals seem to have explicit policies about. I think I may have resubmitted a paper to the same journal a few times. The few times I've done so, it was several years after the initial submission, and after changing the paper substantially (indeed, after going back to square-one and rewriting the paper from the ground up). However, I don't do this very often, and for one major reason: I'm not sure whether editors hold it against a paper if it was previously submitted to the journal.

Does anyone have experience with this? It might be good to hear from authors and editors. Authors, have you had any success resubmitting a paper to the same journal again? And editors, what is your experience on this? Does your journal consider/not consider resubmissions (after a certain amount of time)? Do you hold it against a paper in any way if it was previously submitted. I have a paper I sent to journals many years ago (like a decade ago!) that I've rewritten and would like to give another go, and it would be great to know the answer to these questions! 

Weekend wavelengths

A plea for more types of publications

Avram Hiller has a good piece over at Daily Nous (one I mostly agree with!) suggesting that philosophy journals should be more like science journals, which publish very short (1,500 word) "letters" along with full-length articles. Hiller's basic ideas are that many philosophy articles don't need to be as long as they do, and that more space for shorter pieces might increase philosophical discussion and inclusivity, make things easier on authors, editors, and readers, and increase acceptance rates.

I'm not sure about a few of these things--as I expect journals might start to be flooded with short pieces--but still, I'm generally sympathetic with Hiller's proposal. As I've mentioned before, I think the fairly standard policy of journals not considering "replies" to articles in other journals is a pretty big barrier to philosophical discussion. If more journals had a "letters" section, involving both short original pieces as well as replies, I suspect it would benefit the profession in some of the ways Hiller suggests.

However, I'd also like to make a converse plea I've made before: a plea for journals to consider longer pieces as well. In brief, I think good philosophy comes in all shapes and sizes. Some arguments can be made in 1,500 words. Some arguments can be made in 6,000 words. Others can be made in 10,000 words. Others still can only be made in 15,000 words. Still others require 20,000 words. And some--book length arguments--require 100K+ words.

Mid-career reflections, part 7: ask for help

If there is one guiding theme behind my mid-career reflections so far, it is that while our careers in the profession are subject to a great deal of 'life and luck', adaptation is key. As I explained in my post on bitterness and resentment, early in my grad career I didn't adapt very well to some unlucky events and aspects of the profession I found frustrating. I let bitterness and frustration get the best of me for a time, mostly to my own detriment. Similarly, as I wrote in my post on why people matter, I didn't get it early in my career why people matter. Finally, I've explained why I think it is important to adapt to the fact that quite a bit of conventional wisdom in the profession seems dubious at best. If one just follows conventional wisdom unreflectively, one may inadvertently adopt counterproductive job-market strategies. 

In a sense, none of this should be very surprising. What is true in philosophy seems true of life in general: uncontrollable events aside, the better one adapts the better off one is likely to be. But this in turn raises the question: what strategies can one adopt to better ensure that one adapts well to things in the profession. When I reflect on my career so far, one thing stands out: the importance of asking for help when you need it. Allow me to explain.

Final call for mentors

This is a just a quick update on the Cocoon's job-market mentoring program, and a final call for mentors. The good news is that Helen and I have been able to match over twenty mentees with mentors so far this summer. Many thanks to all of the mentors who signed up! The bad news is that we are having some difficulty finding mentors for our remaining applicants. With this in mind, we'd like put our a 'targeted' call for mentors in the following areas:

• Philosophy of Science
• German philosophy
• Islamic philosophy
• Early Modern
• Continental Philosophy
• Experimental philosophy
• Metaphilosophy
• Cognitive science
• Bioethics
• Philosophy of language (European market)
• American Philosophy (e.g. pragmatism)
• Middle-eastern personal background
• Asian/international personal background

If you are tenure-track or tenured and any of the above apply to you, please do consider signing up as a mentor!

Mid-career reflections, part 6: trajectory matters

In my first post in this series, I explained why I have come to doubt some common pieces of conventional wisdom in the discipline: conventional wisdom about program rankings, publishing, putting research in front of teaching, and blogging. In brief, a lot of things that seem intuitive--things that just 'seem like they should be right'--are in my experience not right.

Today's post is about the other side of the coin: something that doesn't appear to me to be widely disseminated conventional wisdom, but in my experience probably should be. The issue I want to discuss is the importance of one's perceived career-trajectory. Allow me to explain what this means, and how in my experience it matters.

Mid-career reflections, part 5: people matter

In the comments section of my Top 5 Job-Market Tips post, Postdoc wrote:

I think another tip worth mentioning is network and find an advisor or mentor who is going to work on your behalf to help you get a job, to help you publish, talk you up, introduce you to the big names in the field, and so on. Many of those I know who managed to get somewhere were great networkers, or had a lot of help from more senior faculty...if you think you can get a job based simply on your own merit, especially if you don't have the pedigree, I think you'll be disappointed. So, I guess this tip could be summarized like so: As unintuitive as it might seem to some of you (I know it never occurred to me), don't spend all your time during your PhD reading and writing. Rather, be sociable, and find out how to get people to like you, remember you, think you're smart, and so on. (I've found that a good way to get people to think you're smart is to 1. use big words and 2. be fast on your feet, e.g. maybe memorize a series of witty but not condescending rejoinders). These things are as important to finding a job as your philosophical outputs...

Funny thing, even before Postdoc wrote this comment, I had planned to write a post in this series on how people matter. In brief, though I deeply disagree with Postdoc's point about sounding smart, my overall experience has been much the same as Postdoc's. The people I know who have the most successful in the profession have indeed been, by and large, those who developed good  relationships, not just with mentors but with people in the profession more broadly, including other grad students. More than that, though, I've found good relationships in the profession to be intrinsically valuable, in ways I underestimated early in my career. Allow me to explain.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees, part 23: Top 5 job-market tips

The Cocoon has now had several series offering job-market advice: a Job-Market Bootcamp, Notes from Both Sides of the Job-Market, and most recently the present series. I hope you have found these series helpful, and hope to continue to dedicate new series to the topic in the future. That being said, these series have offered a lot of advice, and I suppose it can be a bit overwhelming. Consequently, to simplify a bit, I thought it might be good to have a post discussing top-5 list(s) of job-market advice. I'll begin by offering (and explaining) my own top-5 list. Then I'll invite discussion of the list and also invite those of you who have experience on the market--either as job-candidates or search-committee members--to share your own lists. Here goes!

Although my list may or may not be correct, I found it surprisingly easy to put together. In my experience--as a many-year job-candidate, three-time search committee member, and given some empirical evidence I'll share below--the following tips are without a doubt my top 5:

Tip 1: if you want an R1 job, you had better come from a highly-ranked Leiter program. If you are not from a highly-ranked school, it can be incredibly difficult to publish your way into these jobs.

This tip isn't just my opinion. First, there is empirical evidence for it. In an article forthcoming in Ergo, our own Helen De Cruz found that, "There is a structural lack of upward social mobility in hiring practices: someone from a prestigious school may end up in a lower-ranked institution, but the reverse is unusual." (p. 4) Here is De Cruz's 'money chart':

The Secret Lives of Search Committees, Part 22: apply again!

I had a bit of a strange experience as a search committee member I'd like to share. As I will explain, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it--but the most plausible explanation seems to me to be a potentially dangerous assumption by job-candidates.

In brief, the experience was this. I served on a search committee for a TT job on back-to-back years, both of which were in the same AOS. We hired someone the first year, who then left to return to their previous job (for good personal/professional reasons). We then hired a different person the next year who is still with us and doing great. Here, though, was the strange thing. There weren't many jobs in the AOS in either year (I went back and counted a paltry 4 jobs in the AOS the first year, and 6 in the second year). As such, it seems highly probable that most of the people who applied for our position the first year went on the market again the second year. That's many dozens of people. The surprising thing, though, was that almost none of the people who applied the first time around seemed to apply again the second year. It was really striking. I had expected to see some familiar names pop up again (and was hoping some of them would), and yet...there were so very few repeat applicants.

Reader suggestion: make sure your contact info is readily available

An anonymous reader wrote in yesterday:

I look up a lot of younger philosophers on the internet...and SO OFTEN it is really hard to find their contact information (email, etc.). I'm sure that cannot help their job searches, etc. so I wonder if it would do a tiny bit of good to post a little something on the Cacoon blog along the lines of "Make your contact information really obvious.. since people might want to contact you about a job, collaborations, invitations, etc.!"

Funny, I have had exactly the same problem! I go to look up an early-career philosopher, and their contact info seems nearly impossible to find. I agree with your reader: this generally isn't good, especially if you are on the job market. People on search committees may be interested in finding out more about you, and may be disappointed if they cannot find much. Indeed, I would even go so far as to suggest it could make a difference in whether you are interviewed. If a search committee member is "on the fence" (i.e. unsure) about you, additional information--such as info on your website--could well make a difference.

In short: unless you have some special reason to hide your identity or info online (which in some cases may exist), make sure you have a professional website with your info readily available. Don't make people go hunting through your department's webpage for info (where there is usually very little about you). A good website can very much make a positive impression--and in any case it can be very important to make it easy for people to get into contact with you! 

Extended deadline: 2018 Cocoon conference

Although the original deadline for the 6th Annual Philosophers' Cocoon Philosophy Conference was on June 1st, I am interested in potentially adding additional papers to fill out the conference program (the review process is still in progress). So, if any of you are interested in submitting a paper, I am extending the deadline to July 15th.

The conference will be held at University of Tampa on Saturday October 13th-Sunday October 14th, 2018. If you're curious about what the conference has been like in past years, see here.

Changing peer-review: as good a time as any?

I wrote last week about how I've found it better to let bitterness and resentment about the profession go. While I didn't claim that my experiences generalize or suggest that there aren't things about the profession that might rightly make people bitter, I hope at least some of you found the post helpful. All that being said, there are still some things about the profession that frustrate many of us--and as I mentioned in that post, I think we should discuss and try to improve things in the profession. So, in today's post, I'm going to discuss some concerns I've mentioned before about our current processes of peer-review, and how our system might be improved.

I'd like to begin by considering how people feel about our system of peer-review. Here is my general sense:

Editors don't seem to like it: As J. David Velleman (editor of Philosophers' Imprint) wrote at Daily Nous a while back, journals are overwhelmed with papers. The number of papers journals receive is making it progressively more difficult to find enough willing referees, give papers the attention they are due, and so on. Velleman has not been shy about his concerns, as I recall him sharing similar concerns on a number of occasions. And, in my experience, other editors seem to feel similarly. For example, when I recently inquired with an editor about a paper I submitted that had been under review a fairly long while, the editor mentioned that the peer-review system is "broken." I very much appreciated the editor's candor--not to mention the editor's timely and conscientious resolution to my inquiry--but I think it just goes to show: editors seem to like our current system about as much as the rest of us. Which brings me to...

Referees don't seem to like it: I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard referees complain about our current peer-review system. It isn't that referees despise reviewing per se. On the contrary, I've heard some people say they think it is a valuable and important service to the profession. No, the concerns I've heard referees voice--many times in the comments section of this very blog--are typically about the kinds of papers they receive: papers that in their judgment are nowhere near publishable, and should have been desk-rejected. Among other things, I've heard referees often complain about egregious failures to engage in relevant literature--something I continually encounter as a referee: papers saying or implying things like "No one has argued X" when a simple philpapers search on that topic reveals multiple listings of people arguing X on the very first page.

Authors really don't like it: This much should go without saying. I want to be clear, though. Like many people, I think, I have had some very good experiences in the peer-review process: timely decisions, with really helpful referee reports, and so on. The problem, from an author's perspective, is not that the process never goes well. The problem is that there are many things that often don't go well. Waiting many months to get a verdict on a paper can be excruciating--especially if one is on the job-market or coming up for tenure. Having to bug editors about papers that are well-past their reviewer deadlines is nerve-wracking, as one may worry that bugging the editor (and, by extension, reviewer) might elicit a negative result. Then there are worries about being "scooped", as in cases when one worked for months or years on a paper, finished it years ago and yet, while it is still under review, one sees other people publish similar arguments (a dispiriting and anxiety-producing experience, to be sure). Then there is the phenomenon of "Google reviewing", which occurs when one submits a paper for anonymized review only to suspiciously find one's website googled with the paper title a few days later (I've heard many people report this). Finally, while there are some very good reviewers, there are also reviewers who don't do a good job--reviewers who take months on a paper only to give you five dismissive (and in some cases, needlessly inflammatory) sentences, as well as reviewers who seem to have read totally different papers--not to mention the fact that some of the most influential papers in the field appear to have been systematically rejected. 

A philpapers reply journal?

I've mentioned a few times about how journal restrictions on replies seem to me an unfortunate barrier to philosophical discussion, and how it might be cool for there to be a replies-only journal. Anyway, a few days ago David Bourget asked on philpeople whether the PhilPapers Foundation should create a journal of just that sort. Would you like to see such a journal? If so, I'd suggest liking Bourget's post and letting him know!