Our books

Become a Fan

« Acknowledging reviewers properly? | Main | Writing a good conference abstract? »



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


I wouldn't say they perform very badly in the rankings. They're not at the top, sure, but the 20-25 range for the generalist journals is still quite good. I, for one, regularly read great work in The Monist, Thought, and Ratio.

For my part, I view publications in invite-only venues as equivalent to other invited publications--which is to say, a step below an unsolicited peer-reviewed publication, but above other kinds of work. I don't think any journal should work this way. I suspect my view is not at all common, however.

For the same reason, I also have a relatively dim view of the Oxford Studies... volumes which are tied to workshops/conferences, although I know that they're widely regarded as top specialist venues. (Meaning that I'm usually more impressed by a publication elsewhere, although having said that, if I had a research hat on then I'd also want to see a specialist publishing there in addition to elsewhere.) So: that should be a clear indication that my view is kind of idiosyncratic. But I'm sticking to it.

Grad student

One reason why invited-only submissions may not be seen positively is because they either bypass the anonymous peer review process or they are solicited through social networks (e.g. your advisor reaching out to you to write a chapter for one of the thematic volumes for an invite-only journal). So these articles lack the few barely functional egalitarian processes in our profession.


It depends. I think those publications are viewed very differently in different contexts, such as research-oriented programs, teaching-oriented programs, and the job market. For example, my department only has an undergraduate program and is teaching-oriented. For tenure and promotion, we mostly care about whether the publications are peer reviewed (blind or not). So, publications in invite-only journals will not be viewed differently if there is a reviewing process, by the editor(s) or reviewers.


For what it's worth, I share the op's impression that Leiter's rankings understate the reputation of these journals, or at least the Nous supplements--Phil Issues and Phil Perspectives. (Which isn't to argue with Michel and Grad student about whether they deserve their reputations.) Publications in these journals are very clear indicators that you are in the in-crowd--which can be especially important in the absence of other such indicators (e.g. if you come from a less-than-Leiterrific PhD program, or have a less-than-famous advisor). In my experience, these signals do really give job applicants a leg up (relative to what's signaled by a publication in Synthese or Phil Studies, say).

One guess about why they may be underranked: being annual supplements, they don't publish nearly as many articles as other prestigious-but-not-tippy-top journals, even (most) quarterly ones. So, many fewer people have published in them. And people are very likely to favor the journals they've published in when filling out Leiter's polls.

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