Our books






Become a Fan

« Giving philosophy its due? | Main | The value of some wastefulness: robustness and serendipity »

08/26/2020

Comments

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

Mike

I second Marcus' thoughts. The details of this case seem pretty straightforward.

It sounds like the paper makes a legitimate lapse in scholarship (missing the argument for P) which should be addressed (although perhaps the reviewer's own argument for premise P isn't as clear as they think --- it's not clear who's the sloppy one, in this case). Still, I would press that it's not the job of the reviewer to make sure the paper is *correct* in every aspect of its philosophical content and argument. The question (I think) should be whether it makes an interesting, scholarly competent addition to the literature.

I know the urge to fight philosophical battles behind the curtain of peer-review is strong, but just keep in mind that a new paper criticizing your own view is just another opportunity for you to publish (in response).

Tim

Regarding 1, I would suggest what others have. Simply cite the relevant passage from the third-person and recommend the author engage with it. If you are feeling particularly generous, you might also quickly reconstruct the argument from that passage for the author. Its possible the author spent time with that passage and couldn't figure it out. (We've all been there.) So a quick reconstruction might help them out and increase discussion of your work.

Regarding 2, I would only flag material that is unnecessary. If there are parts that seem unnecessary for the authors argument, highlight them. Otherwise, I would ignore it. I once received a review where the reviewer said that the tone was overly hostile while giving no examples. I was surprised. I re-read the paper and didn't find any examples that I thought were overly hostile. So merely saying you dislike the tone may not be very helpful. But pointing out that the digression on page 3 doesn't move discussion forward and is rude--that could be helpful.

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.)

University of St. Andrews Grants


Job-market reporting thread

Current Job-Market Discussion Thread

Philosophers in Industry Directory

Cocoon Job-Market Mentoring Program

Categories