When should one start trying to publish?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

[I]s it ever too early to be trying to publish? if so, what are the downsides of trying to publish too early?

[M]ore specifically, I'm an incoming first year phd student at a top program and I have a couple of articles drafted that I want to try to get out into the world. [I]f I were still in undergrad, I'd have a trusted advisor read them and advise me, but I'm not. I don't have any relationship with people at my soon to be grad school yet, and because of the pandemic, I don't want to assume that I'll be interacting much with potential advisors this fall, or sending them independent work to read. [T]he way I see it, there wouldn't be much harm in sending off my articles to good journals and hopefully getting some helpful comments from reviewers (or, unlikely but very best case, actually getting published!) since reviews are anonymous, right? Or am I missing something?

Good questions! One reader chimed in with a negative answer:

Yes it is too early. Undergraduates should not bother publishing, unless you were told you were the next Saul Kripke. And you should not send undergrad papers to journals to get feedback. It is not that kind of service. Referees referee for free, and they do so on the understanding that a colleague - an equal - is sending in a manuscript that they have some reason to believe is a contribution to the professional literature. You are missing something.

I also think it is too early. There are two fairly obvious downsides for this reader attempting to publish their papers right now: (1) the papers might not be all that good, and (2) if they were to publish stuff that's not all that good, it could affect their long term prospects as well as their reputation among faculty in their grad program. The only potential downside to not publishing right now is that someone else will publish papers defending similar arguments before they do (which, to be clear, could be a serious downside!). Fortunately, there seems to me to be a fairly obvious solution here. Let me explain.

If this reader is entering a top PhD program, then the faculty there believe they have serious promise. Consequently, it seems to me that the thing to probably do here is to inquire with a faculty member who specializes in the relevant area there to see if they are willing to read one of the papers. To be clear, I think it is probably best to begin with one faculty member and one paper to start. There seem to me to be a couple of advantages to this. First, and most obviously, the reader should be able to get a clearer picture of whether their paper is potentially publishable, either now or after revisions. Second, if the paper isn't very good after all, the reader won't have run the risk of embarrassing themselves with multiple faculty in the program they are just about to start. Then I would advise the reader to proceed on the basis of how things turn out. If the faculty member thinks the paper is very good and potentially publishable, then either send out the paper (if they think it's ready) or (more likely) revise it if they think it could be publishable after revisions. On the other hand, if their reaction to the paper is negative, then the reader will have information pointing in a different direction.

Let me add one observation here, which I suspect many faculty probably identify with and which undergraduates and new graduate students should probably know. My experience is that there is a pretty strong tendency for students to think they are ready to publish well before they are actually ready to publish. Just because you've gotten great grades on term-papers or even PhD-level seminars, that does not mean your work is publishable. This is for several reasons. First, the standards that professors use to grade papers just aren't anything like the standards that referees and editors use to decide whether a paper is publishable (the vast majority of 'A' papers in graduate seminars aren't publishable). Second, the differences in these standards are often in part because the assigned material in a course (including a PhD seminar) will typically be far narrower than the literature at large. You may think you have come up with a wonderfully creative and original argument, and in the context of a course's material this may well be true. But, it may turn out that beyond the course material, a bunch of other scholars have already defended similar ideas in print--in which case your paper is going to look woefully out of touch with the current state of the literature. This, in brief, is what a PhD level education is for, particularly comprehensive examinations: namely, to  professionalize you and systematically bring you up to speed with the literature, which you will then be expected to know when writing and submitting publishable papers. And it is (in my experience) one of the primary things that students who think they are ready to publish when they're not tend to be missing. 

All that being said (and I realize I may have come across as a bit of a buzzkill here!), I'll say this: once you do begin to get indications from grad faculty that your work may be publishable, then don't delay! It absolutely is better to start publishing sooner rather than later. The important thing, I think, is to not try it prematurely: that is, before the faculty in your program have 'vetted' some of your work and think it is ready.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[Mike]

In general I'm always surprised to hear of first, second, or even third year graduate students sending stuff off to be published. I know this observation is just anecdotal, but no one I knew that early in their PhD was writing publishable stuff. I tried sending stuff out my third year of graduate school. It was all rejections. In hindsight, looking back at those papers, they weren't just bad, they weren't publishable (for many reasons). I think the development, in philosophy and writing (and scholarship), needed to produce publishable work takes years. Most people (it seems to me) aren't at that level until the end of graduate school (which is the whole point of graduate school, to get you to that level).

The thought of someone who is just finishing their *undergrad*, who hasn't started their grad program, sending stuff out sounds ... well, it sounds like a really bad idea. The odds that you actually have publishable papers are *extremely* low --- well under 1%. Now, as Marcus and others have said, if a prof in your PhD program tells you they're publishable, that's different. By all means, submit them. But without that signal, the prior probability is vanishingly small.

As others have said, the peer review system isn't a mechanism to get feedback or to find out if you have a publishable paper. It's way overburdened as it is, etc. So, you're not being a good philosophy citizen by sending stuff out, in your case.

If you're really anxious to send stuff out, send it to conferences, maybe?

[Recent grad]

There’s obviously some tension here between this advice and other suggestions you see elsewhere about professionalization, which encourage you to professionalize as early as possible—and professionalizing means publishing.

I think it is better to err on the side of publishing early, or at least trying to. The fact is that unless you are at a top program, you will need publications in order to get a job, and the only way to get them is to try to send things out. It will probably take a few tries (or more) in order to land the first one, and the experience you gain will be valuable.

Now that I am on the other side of the job market, I am less worried about Marcus’s concern (2) in his response above. A publication which isn’t very good is only likely to hurt you—and probably will hurt you—if you are going for research jobs. For other jobs, as long as the journal is a real philosophy journal, basically any publication is going to help you. In most of my Skype interviews and even on the flyouts (almost all teaching-oriented jobs), it was clear that almost no one had read my writing sample or previously-published papers. No one brought them up or cared at all.,

However, as I write this, I recognize that this advice applied to the pre-corona job market. We’ll know better six or seven weeks from now, but if there are as few new jobs as I fear there might be, then discussions like this one are going to be pretty pointless.

[Marcus Arvan]

Recent grad: I think you are absolutely right! As I’ve said on this blog on multiple occasions, the only evidence that has been collected on this is that “bad” publications actually help on academic job markets. So I’m bullish on publishing early and often. It’s better to publish too early than too late.

What I don’t think, though, is that the OP who wrote in for this thread should just start sending things out before they even start their PhD program or have any idea of what anyone in the program thinks of the work in question. There’s little harm in them getting a second or third opinion on the work by faculty in their new program before thinking of sending out, and a lot to be gained from it (including, of course, feedback on the work itself).

[Tim]

My opinion is slightly different. Some advice on this topic may be given on your current academic situation, e.g., being an early (=non-ABD?) graduate student. On its own, I don't think this is relevant (setting aside issues of professionalization). What's relevant is whether the paper is, as a matter of fact, publishable. The relevance of being an early graduate student is that your ability, on your own, to evaluate whether the paper is publishable is not particularly good yet. So you may have a lot of false positives on your own work--thinking it is publishable when it is not.

I would recommend getting advice from your professors. That is what I did in graduate school. If I was interested in publishing a paper, I would normally request two rounds of feedback. First, an initial round of feedback. (This might come in the form of comments for a final paper.) I would use this feedback to revise. Second, a second and final round of feedback where I explicitly asked the professor if they thought that the paper was or could be publishable and, if so, what journals might they recommend. This strategy was mildly effective. I published three papers in this way and was (wisely) warned away from two others.

I recognize that this strategy requires professors to give feedback. And that is sometimes hard. But until one is able to build up a better sense of what papers are publishable or not, advice from one's graduate professors can be quite useful.

[anon]

I think that it's fine for OP to send these articles off - the worst thing that could happen is that they get published.

That being said, I agree with Marcus that year 1 of the PhD is *so* early that it's also fine to wait for a while. Waiting a bit might turn out to be useful - the papers might get better, either through OP's judgment changing over the course of the next year or two, or the OP getting some feedback from their new professors.

Also, OP, I would say that even if you aren't a current UG student anymore, it would be fine to ask your letter writers - profs from your former UG institution, I assume - for some feedback.

[Evan]

This reminds me of two sub-species of guidance (species of teaching): reference and suggestion. For example, a high school *guidance* counselor will *refer* her students to many resources (e.g., educational resources, financial resources, and social resources). He or she will point-to things for her students to follow and/or do. Referring to something always involves pointing-to something (direct or indirect).

However, the counselor will also *suggest* students things as a form of giving advice/wisdom. Thus, guidance is both referential and suggestive.

In this case, professors and advisors who want to guide students should refer them to cutting edge and up-to-date researches, theories, arguments, and/or high-quality educational resources. It’s about keeping students on their toes so they won’t fall behind in terms of inquiry and professionalization as Marcus said.

It also involves, as Marcus wrote, providing advice for students on how to improve their thinking and papers and/or suggest them an alternative route or plan altogether.

Guidance is often an indirect way of teaching students things. But nevertheless, it can still be instrumental depending on the quality and quantity of the references and suggestions provided. A teacher and former philosophy major Bruce Lee utilized this method of teaching as well. It worked well for him and his students.

Thus, students should seek guidance from their professor(s) first before publishing.

[RJM]

Just wanted to push back against the suggestion that you need years of grad school to write publishable stuff. If this were true, nobody who did their PhD in the UK (typically 4 year undergrad, then 1 year MA if you ignore Oxford, then 3-4 year PhD) would be able to publish anything in a reputable journal. But this isn’t the case. I had papers accepted in my 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of my PhD and I am far from unique. Writing publishable papers is a skill and like all skills you can acquire it if you put in some effort. Those who decry the quality of the papers that result may have a point, but that point applies far more widely than they perhaps intend. Just look at an issue of Phil Studies and you will find many papers with the supposed vices of narrowness, ignoring relevant literature, etc. In general I think it is a bad idea as a student to hold yourself up to a higher standard than faculty members but some of the advice here seems to do that.

[Evan]

I think the aim here is to publish as much as one can and should under a constraint, which is doing it under the guidance and feedback of one’s professor(s). This can occur early on or later.

Based on other posts, it’s clear that having a lot of published works can increase the chances of one’s job security.

However, I have some words of wisdom to professors: feedback should be done cautiously and wisely. It’s evident that graduate school is difficult and so harsh criticisms can be harmful to the student’s morale and self-esteem.

There are three species of evaluation that need to be considered when giving it to students: 1) suggestion, 2) affirmation, and 3) negation.

1. Two sub-species of suggestions are: recommendation and advice. When neccessary, recommend students alternative plans, routes, and/or other literatures to read. As well, give them advice on how to improve their writing. Suggestion implies adding-to the student’s work and thinking. Recommendation is thus referential while advice is procedural. Suggestion isn’t always necessary in feedback, but it may be useful when there is a need for it.

2. Two sub-species of affirmation are: praise and appreciation. When evaluating the student’s work, find things to praise them about. If they excel in writing clearly, then let them know. It indicates to them that that is what they should continue to do and not have to worry about constantly; it weeds out unnecessary aims for refinement(s), which can be a waste of their time. Appreciating a student’s work is telling them which aspect(s) of their work is fruitful to the literature and/or academic community at large. It reassures them that they truly belong there and that their effort and purpose in the academic community aren’t in vain.

3. Two sub-species of negation are: criticism and correction. Suggestion and affirmation are the sweet sides of evaluation while negation is the bitter side (at least to those of the receiving end it). Criticism always entails some sort of disapproval of a particular thing. In this case, it’s the student's work. Criticism should be done in a professional manner and tone. It’s about identifying things in their work that are wrong, fallacious, unfruitful, unconvincing, incoherent, etc. This is where all of our relevant criteria are used as reference for critiquing. Correction is probably less harsh because it aims and functions to fix the student’s mistakes e.g., grammar, structure, definitions.

Feedback should be pursued and done with care.