In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:
I'll begin with some context: Recently I submitted a paper to a journal. This paper was a response to another paper published in that journal; the paper being responded to, in turn, was itself a response to an earlier paper of mine (also published in that same journal). Earlier today, unfortunately, I received an email from the editor letting me know that my new paper had been rejected. In explanation, the editor left the following comment: "I can't publish this, because it cites our own articles too much. Hopefully, another venue might be interested."
I now have a few questions:
(1) What might be the prospects for publishing the paper elsewhere? If I remember correctly, I've heard that most journals won't be willing to consider publishing a response to a paper that was not itself published in their own journal. If that's right, then there'd appear to be little hope of publishing the paper elsewhere. But I was wondering if anyone had any relevant thoughts or experiences here.
(2) To the extent that publishing the paper elsewhere does appear hopeless, what's left? Perhaps simply putting a copy of the paper on my PhilPeople profile? Though it'd of course be disappointing not to have the paper published in an actual journal, this is a paper that means a great deal to me personally, and I suppose I'd rather have it be available in some form than not at all. Has anyone else here had experiences of being deeply invested in a paper, yet not being able to find a publisher for it? If so, what "last resort" options have you found?
These are excellent questions. My general sense is that, with respect to (1), the best general path forward may be to try to convert the reply piece into something more like a standalone journal article. I've done this with several pieces, and sometimes it has worked, sometimes not. The other obvious path forward is to look for other places to publish it, such as other journals that accept replies to articles in other journals, or in an edited volume (which has worked for me before). But I can never remember which journals accept replies to articles in other journals, so if readers want to suggest such journals in the comments section below, by all means, please do!
With respect to (2), my sense is that unless you are a Big Name, simply posting a copy of the paper on PhilPeople/PhilPapers probably isn't a great idea. People seem to read unpublished drafts posted there, but rarely seem to seriously engage with such papers, not treating them as 'part of the literature.' So, my suggestion is to focus on option (1). But let me offer a few additional thoughts on the OP's last few questions ('Has anyone else here had experiences of being deeply invested in a paper, yet not being able to find a publisher for it? If so, what "last resort" options have you found?'). Here, my experience has been that sometimes simply being patient pays off. I've had papers like these that I was pretty invested in, but then temporarily abandoned them because (like the OP) I had no idea what to do with them. But then, strangely, over subsequent years I often found that some weird opportunity would come up to do something with them. For example, on at least one occasion I saw a CFP for an edited volume on the issues surrounding the paper, submitted the paper, and published in a volume. Similarly, I've seen CFPs for conferences on papers I've abandoned, submitted papers there, and seen the conference proceedings turned into edited volumes. My experience is that if you keep an eye out for opportunities like these, they can turn into good outlets for publishing reply papers for which you have otherwise seemingly exhausted your options.
But these are just my thoughts. What do you all think?
to the poster:
The important thing is the argument in the paper. That is what you should try to published. So figure a way to place it in another related paper, or some other means of presenting it so that a journal will see it as a general contribution
Posted by: what next | 05/27/2021 at 10:01 AM
Consider (a) making it a comparison paper with some other, alternative view, your own or some other author’s, or (b) making it a more general criticism with that as your focal example.
Posted by: Philaffle | 05/27/2021 at 10:44 AM
I agree: convert it to something standalone. It takes work, but it's not that hard. Just work on developing a broader point, and use the reply dialectic to help establish that point, rather than focusing on it to the exclusion of all else.
It may well be rejected a few times for still being too much like a reply, but be persistent and it will probably pay off in the end.
FWIW, I had a reply piece that wound up in PhilStudies after seven rejections over four years (including one that said they'd reconsider it if I converted it to a reply piece! =/ ). I'm glad it's a standalone paper now, though, because it's really quite good--and much better and more impactful than it was as a reply!
Posted by: Michel | 05/27/2021 at 11:32 AM
If memory serves me well, dialectica and erkenntnis in principle allow reply pieces to papers published elsewhere. I don't know whether they hold those replies to higher standards.
Posted by: B | 05/28/2021 at 04:02 AM
You might also fold it into a section of a larger, more substantive paper which makes a broader point. That way you're not just selling a reply paper as a standalone argument.
I must admit I chop up my "going nowhere" papers and re-use parts of them in other papers quite often.
Posted by: Postdoc | 05/28/2021 at 06:47 AM
I'm the original poster. Thank you to all who've shared your thoughts thus far.
In case anyone's curious, here's what I'm now thinking I'll do: try submitting the paper in its current (reply) form to one or two more journals; then, if those don't work out, I'll probably try reframing the paper somehow and going from there (or perhaps, if I'm feeling ambitious, turning it into the start of a book project).
(For reasons I won't bore anyone with, I think that convincingly reframing the paper into a standalone paper--such that the reframing doesn't just come across as a trick meant to hide the fact that this is really, in its heart and soul, a reply paper--will be quite difficult, if not impossible. Likewise for subsuming the paper within a larger paper that makes a broader point. Unfortunately, some key features of the paper simply seem to me to make these options impractical. But I can certainly see how they're options worth keeping in mind for reply papers more generally.)
Thanks again to all who've shared advice.
Posted by: Grateful for everyone's thoughts | 05/28/2021 at 07:42 AM
@Grateful:
Converting the paper into a standalone paper is a fine idea, though simply submitting the reply version elsewhere is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I published a reply piece in journal x that was responding to an article in journal y. When I was preparing to submit it, everyone told me that this was simply not done and that it would most likely be rejected, but it ended up being accepted at the first journal I sent it to. So at least give it a go!
Posted by: Reply author | 05/28/2021 at 09:58 AM
Acta Analytica, Philosophia, and Logos and Episteme also publish replies to papers in other journals.
Posted by: NG | 05/28/2021 at 02:34 PM