Our books

Become a Fan

« Tips for teaching historical courses? | Main | How can we help you? (May 2022) »



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

Newly Dr

It seems to me that case 2 should be impossible: who cares if T1 changed their mind! Other people might still hold their original view. I think this one is likely to be solved by different framing of the paper: why might someone hold T1's original view, why is it nonetheless incorrect?

We are, I take it, not generally supposed to care about what a particular philosopher thinks. What matters is whether the view has some initial plausibility and how good your arguments for or against it are. So just make it an impersonal paper about the view, not its proponent.

I guess it could be a case where the view is so initially implausible that it only gets any attention because famous guy X thinks it is true. In that case I would suggest we all avoid trying to write such papers in the first place.


It sounds to me like the reader may need to change their publication strategy.

They should, of course, have lots of papers out there simultaneously. But I think they should also spread them across the journal hierarchy a little more, especially since they need publications (it's all well and good to actually get something into PhilReview, but if it takes you six years to do so and it's pretty much all you've got, that doesn't help your tenure bid). That's not to say that they should reach way far down, but rather that perhaps they need to spread to the T20 + the top specialist journals in their AOS.

What I would do, if I were the reader, is single out one of my papers (or two, if I had lots of papers written up already) which I want to get into PR/Noûs/Mind/JPhil/PPR/whatever takes a while, and send the others 'round to journals with better reputations for a quick turnaround, including top specialist journals (if there are any in the reader's AOS). I would also advise them to keep an eye on special/topical issue CFPs at solid journals, including solid specialist outlets a little outside their AOS. They're somewhat easier to publish in, since the journal is committed to X number of articles on a pre-defined subject, and they can help to round out your file. In my experience, they're also fairly quick.

Throwing all of one's work at the T5 journals first and then working down from there strikes me as a bad strategy for someone with time constraints. The likelihood of rejection coupled with the time to review are bad news.

I would also suggest that narrower (or time-sensitive) papers like P2 (which sounds more like a reply piece to me) are best reserved for journals with a quick turnaround time. Like Newly Dr said above, the only thing to do now is to reframe it and try again elsewhere. The same, I think, applies to P1. Figure out what your paper's original contribution is, focus on that, and send it out again.

It's worth noting, however, that there are plenty of high-status journals with a quick turnaround time even among the top generalist journals--e.g. AJP, Analysis, and Synthese. Even though the reader is at a T5 department, they don't need to limit themselves to the T5 generalist journals. Have a look at where junior or newly-promoted faculty at peer institutions are publishing.

new order

I think the poster has to get advice from someone in their circle. That is, they need to ask faculty members at top 5 programmes how to proceed, given the constraints. Otherwise they will gets of advice from people who live in completely different worlds, advice that they will not take (probably, for fear of winding up in these other people's worlds)

When Two Become One

As someone at an excellent program who also has a two-body problem, I want to question the claim that "sending to lower ranked journals isn't an option" because OP "needs excellent publications" to solve their two-body problem.

Here are two other ways of solving the two-body problem: 1) one or both can focus on teaching; or 2) one or both can find amazingly fulfilling alt-ac careers. neither 1) nor 2) require 'excellent' publications, and both 1) and 2) seem to be viable ways of solving a two-body problem.

I mention this simply because, at least from my perspective, there are lots of ways of solving a two-body problem, and only one of them--perhaps one of the lowest likelihood ones--is to publish at such excellent journals that you (or both of you) can have your choice of R1 TT jobs. My partner and I ultimately want to be happy, healthy, and professionally fulfilled wherever we end up, and I think focusing on top publications is but a small part (if any) of an optimal strategy.

Hope that helps!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

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.


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.)

Subscribe to the Cocoon

Job-market reporting thread

Current Job-Market Discussion Thread

Philosophers in Industry Directory


Subscribe to the Cocoon