Tips for reply papers?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, confusedgradstudent writes:

The participants at a paper workshop suggested I send in my paper as a response piece. They also noted that response pieces are 'easier to get in.'

My paper responds to a problem that is associated with a particular philosopher, so I suppose that this shouldn't be too hard. But, how would I go about framing the paper as a response piece? Do I do this merely to flag to the editor that this paper is a response piece? Also, is it true that response papers are easier to get published?

Excellent questions. In my experience, publishing replies (sometimes also called 'discussion notes') is a great way for early career philosophers to start publishing. My first two publications were both replies, and they helped me learn the publishing ropes, as it were. There are several nice things about replies:

1. They are normally quite short (2,000-3,000 words or so).
2. They are easier and quicker to write than longer standalone papers.
3. They may be a bit easier to get published, as referees and editors may use different standards of acceptance.
4. Having a significant publishing record looks good on the job market.

The only real (though significant) downsides to publishing replies, I think, are these:

1. Although a few journals accept replies to papers in other journals, most journals don't.
2. If your reply is rejected at the journal that published the original paper, you may only have two options:
   1. Give up on publishing the paper (which stinks!)
   2. Try to convert it into a longer standalone piece (which can be tough!).
3. Replies may not be conferred as much value in hiring and tenure decisions as standalone articles.
4. They may make less of an impact in the literature (viz. citations) than standalone articles.

Bearing these pros and cons in mind, is publishing replies worth it? I do think so, especially for grad students and early-career PhDs--provided one also tries to publish longer papers, as well. In my case, I initially struggled publishing full-length papers, which was depressing and stressful (I had a number of R&R's on full length papers in grad school, but messed them all up). Both of the replies I wrote came quickly, and it was so nice to finally get a few lines in the 'publishing' section of my CV.

Anyway, to finally answer the OP's questions: 

• How do you frame replies?: Easy, I think my two papers are decent models. Have a very concise introduction that clearly targets a particular work and argument. Then provide a brief exegesis of the target argument. Then justify your objection to it. You're done!
• Do I ... flag to the editor that this paper is a response piece?: Normally yes. Usually, journal submission systems will ask you what 'type' of submission you are making, and you will have the option of selecting between things like 'original article', 'discussion note', etc. You may also title your paper in a way that makes it clear that it is a reply (which both of my replies do).
• Are replies easier to get published?: My sense is 'yes', but this is admittedly anecdotal. It might be good to hear from referees and editors here. First, do you use the same standards for evaluating replies? Second, irrespective of your answer to that question, do you think it is easier for authors to write good replies than longer articles (simply because replies are shorter and less ambitious)? Third (for editors), do you have any acceptance statistics you might share to give us an idea whether acceptance rates differ substantially for replies compared to full articles?

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. It would be great to hear from other readers who have published replies, as well as from referees and editors (particularly for the final sets of questions above). What do you all think?

Comments

[A reply]

Getting them published is harder in one way and easier in another one.

Harder because, in my experience, referees will hold the objection you offer in your reply to a higher standard than they would hold it if it was in a standalone paper. For example, consider a paper that develops a new theory of phenomena P and has a section saying that x has offered a rival theory of P but it is implausible because of a certain objection the author has come up with. In my experience, if the referee thinks "I'm not convinced by that objection but I can see how others would be" they are likely to nonetheless accept the paper if they like the rest of it. However, if you write a reply to x with the same objection, a referee who is unconvinced is likely to reject the reply even if they agree that it might convince others. So, referees generally apply a higher standard of proof to objections in replies.

Easier because you have one very narrow job to do in a reply, whereas in a standalone paper you have many jobs to do. In a reply you simply must produce a powerful, original objection against some significant paper. Get this right and you should get it published (although incompetent referees mean that there is no guarantee). In a standalone paper your arguments will usually be more complicated, perhaps with several distinct parts, and there will be much more literature to engage with, and deciding on the framing will usually be more complicated. This leads to many more points where an unsympathetic referee can find something they don't like and use it to reject your paper. Many people have had the frustrating experience where each new referee takes issue with a different part of their paper while thinking that the things that bothered other referees are completely fine. But this problem rarely happens with replies because of their narrow focus.

[stm]

I myself am thinking of writing a reply for a journal that has a section devoted to them. One question I have, and which I feel like I know the answer to but want to ask anyways, is whether there is any shot that when you submit a reply, the referee is not the person whose paper you are discussing. They have got to be the first referee asked, right? And now let's imagine they're excited that someone wants to reply to their work, rather than being annoyed (or can we not count on this?), is there anything those who have written replies before would recommend to us noobies as something we should definitely not do/say? Of course, we should all be respectful in our writing, while also not being afraid to make objections. But given the nature of replies, is there anything one should be especially cognizant of, given the likely initial audience? Thanks

[RJM]

Agree with the advice. Just to add though that I suspect a part of the evaluation of any reply is the quality of the paper you are replying to. Is it sufficiently central in the (sub-)discipline to warrant a reply?

[confusedgradstudent]

Very helpful, thanks so much!

[re.ply]

stm
I think it is often quite common for journals NOT to send reply pieces to the author of the article being criticized. Journals want impartial referees, insofar as that is a realizable ideal. So do not assume that the author of the piece being criticized will decide the fate of the reply piece.

[Daniel Weltman]

@stm and @re.ply: on Dec 12 2020 I posted this on Facebook: "Philosophers: question. If you write a reply to some paper and send it to a journal, do you think the editors are likely to send that to the author of the piece to referee? Or are they likely to avoid sending it to the author? Or is this a tossup/do editors differ quite a bit in their practices/etc.?"

Three people replied. One said it depends on the paper: if it focuses exclusively on a person's view then the journal likely would not send it to them (since they'd have a conflict of interest) but if it engages with other others they might send it to that person. Another is a junior philosopher who hasn't been in the field super long and who said he had already received two review requests for papers that were direct replies to his own. (And he checked with the editors to make sure they knew this was the case.) The third said that, speaking just for one journal, they would not send replies to be reviewed by the person they are a reply to.

So, I suspect there is wide variation among journals. Some will often (always?) try to get the original author as a reviewer. Some will never do this. And some (based on the judgment of the editors) will do this only when they deem it appropriate.