The Philosophers' Cocoon

APA blog posts and the job market

A reader recently wrote in by email:

I’m wondering if you know (1) how or even whether to list an APA blog post on a CV, and (2) what hiring committees would make of it?

Fair question. I suspect that you can always list it on your CV, and that if you do, you should probably do so under a unique heading (e.g. "Blog Posts").

As for how this will look to search committees, I'm not sure. I suspect that they probably won't count for much, and maybe some committees might even view it strangely. Then again, other committees might look at it as a nice little service to the profession, if for example the post discusses something of public or professional interest.

So, I don't know. What do you all think?

Crowdsourcing review times for specialist journals?

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

I am aware of a couple of crowdsourced web pages for data on average journal review times and other relevant stats for early career people trying to get a feel for where they should and shouldn't send things off if they're hoping for a semi-reasonable turnaround. There are plenty of "specialist" journals, though, that don't end up on those lists, particularly those that intersect with the sciences. I think it could be really helpful to get a thread going in which people can share links to any such journal database pages that they're aware of (including pages for interdisciplinary journals!). I personally didn't find out about these things until well into grad school, and wish I had earlier. I think this would also be a great way of increasing the accuracy of these sources (by increasing submission #s) and slightly minimizing the extent to which success at early stages in this profession hinges on knowing the "right" people with this sort of insider info!

This is a great query. Another reader wrote in:

I'm not sure that there's any other page than this one: https://apasurvey.philx.org/ Seems pretty active.

While to my knowledge that is probably the best page for journal turnaround times, there's at least one other crowdsourced page for other journal stats here.

I highly encourage readers to contribute to it, filling in info for missing journals!

Does anyone know of any other/better pages for philosophy journal info?

Doing a PhD in philosophy of education?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I'm interested in doing a PhD in philosophy of education. The programs I find just based on internet searching are in education departments. These programs aren't out of the question for me, but I'm wondering if there are philosophy departments that welcome that area of research, as I don't see it much when I look on departments' research pages or faculty interests.

And if there are philosophy departments that do accept that area of research, which programs should I look into?

I'm not sure--does anyone know? I guess I would think the best thing to do is to see which PhD programs philosophers work at who do philosophy of education. But one thing I guess I would want the OP to be aware of is that there seem to be few, if any, jobs in academic philosophy for people who focus primarily in this area. So, if one did focus primarily on philosophy of education during one's PhD, one might be in hard place in terms of getting an academic job.

I realize this isn't terribly helpful though, so do any other readers have any other helpful tips or insights?

Doubts about continuing on in academia: to carry on, or not?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Questioning Their Career asks:

I'm close to finishing my PhD - I could be done this coming year if I so choose - and I'm not sure what to do next. I'm just not sure that I really like this work anymore. In the last month or so, I have absolutely dreaded the very thought of writing, and even just talking about philosophy, whether with professor, friends, or students, feels painful at times. I know this is a common reaction to finishing up a dissertation - none of my friends have liked their work by the end of it - and so this could just be the result of burnout. I also know that I now am closer to a professional philosopher than I've ever been, though. I have a much clearer sense of what the job is now than I ever did in the past. I don't think I should just dismiss my current antipathy because it might go away in the future.

I also currently have an opportunity to pursue a very different kind of work that I have good reasons to think I could find deeply meaningful and enjoyable, and my life on that path would be much easier if I started the pursuit sooner rather than later. I plan to finish my dissertation regardless, but my plans for going on the job market and all that would entail would seriously conflict with my ability to start on this alternate path.

This has all left me feeling deeply conflicted. I've poured so much of myself into pursuing this degree and a position in this profession. Being an academic feels like a deep part of me. I've also, historically, loved it. It's sometimes been bad just like any job, but that's never made me doubt that I should pursue it. It feels like I could be throwing something away needlessly because of a temporary setback.

I'm hoping for some insight into what sorts of factors have lead folks either to decide to carry on with academia despite some significant doubts or to leave the profession. I think hearing about others' experiences would help me to better understand whether what I'm experiencing now is a case of mere burnout or something more serious. Thank you all so much for any insight you might have!

I'm sorry to hear that the OP is going though this, and I empathize. It is a great and very understandable query, and I'm curious to hear from readers.

Norms for meetings and feedback with dissertation supervisors?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I'm wondering how much feedback others get from their supervisors and also how much they expect from you and your work. I've talked to others both in philosophy and outside, and I am very surprised to hear from a lot of people, mostly those from outside philosophy, that they get fairly little feedback, sometimes just once a year with committee meetings, and also often requiring fairly little revision at all. Are the expectations in philosophy much higher than other fields? Are they healthy?

Good questions! My sense is that there may be a lot of variance. I didn't meet terribly often with my dissertation supervisor, who was pretty content with me working independently at my own pace--and though I got helpful feedback from him, I don't recall it being a ton, and I was happy with this. On the other hand, I had another committee member (Jerry Gaus) who would give tons of feedback, which was great but could also be pretty overwhelming. But I'm curious to hear from others.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I started with meeting with my supervisor roughly every two weeks for the first two years. The supervision was mainly about honing my writing skills such that I a) write on topics my supervisor believes to be worth writing on, and b) write in a way that, roughly paraphrasing my supervisor, won't lead to a straight rejection from editors or reviewers upon finishing the first or second page of the manuscript. After the first two years, it's pretty much meet whenever I have a draft or revision of a manuscript ready, roughly every 1-3 months. I think compared to some other graduate schools, my supervisor (and others in the department) are rather hands on. I'm not sure whether this works for everyone, but it surely worked for me in terms of publication quantity and quality, and in finding a job. Philosophical writing is, from my own point of view, extremely difficult unless one is innately blessed or properly trained. (Hint: I don't belong to the former group, if such people exists at all.)

Any other readers care to weigh in? How much did you/do you meet with your supervisor, and what are their expectations/feedback like? Do you think the expectations are healthy and/or higher than other fields?

How can we help you? (May 2023)

Now that it's been nearly two months since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new thread.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

As usual, feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask away - we're here to help! 

Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post.

The publishing arms race for philosophy students

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Can we have a thread on publication trends among philosophy students (including BOTH those already in PhD programs AND those yet to be admitted to PHD programs)? Apologies if this has already been discussed/over-discussed elsewhere, but I read in another thread about an applicant to PHD programs already having five publications prior to even beginning their PHD education. This strikes me as ridiculous but also, perhaps, understandable in light of the publication arms race.

So, a question (and one that I'm guessing has been entertained already on this website) is: what should we (can we) do about the publication arms race in philosophy? Perhaps it needs to be tackled in conjunction with the publication arms race in academia more broadly, but perhaps not...

Further, maybe some folks this [think] it's not a problem. If this is the case, I'd be curious to hear why. For my part, I'm tired and overwhelmed by the # of publications out there...even those that just relate specifically to my sub-sub discipline.

This is a good query. I personally know of several cases of students publishing multiple papers in good journals before even getting into a PhD program--and these days, my understanding is that, generally speaking, job candidates need publications to be competitive on the market, which has indeed led to a publishing arms race. Some job candidates these days may even have more publications than the people interviewing them!

What I'm not at all sure is what, if anything, can (or should) be done about this. Do readers have any thoughts?

"What Grad Students Wish They'd Known About Doing a PhD"

This is just a quick note that the excellent podcast, The Philosopher's Nest, has a new bonus episode up entitled, "What Grad Students Wish They'd Known About Doing a PhD." Here's the episode description:

In this second special bonus episode of The Philosopher's Nest, we've asked each of our last 12 guests the same question, and we've compiled each of these answers into a single episode.

We'll be hearing the following 12 Philosophy PhD students answer this question: "What do you know now that you wish you knew when you started your PhD?"

I'd be curious to hear what readers at the Cocoon think, including current PhD students but also those further along in their careers, both those who remained in academic as well as those who have left for jobs elsewhere. 

Do you wish you knew the same things as the guests interviewed here? If not, what do you wish you had known?

 

Do PhD students at unranked programs get a fair shake in peer review?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

In the opinions of Editors of Journals (who decide on whether a paper moves to reviewers), what are the chances of a paper coming from Ph.D. students from "unranked" or not top 50 schools getting to the reviewers? That is, do editors automatically desk reject papers from grad students they haven't heard of or universities that aren't top 50? I ask because this seems to be the sentiment amongst the grad students from these "lower" ranked schools. And it seems to be supported by anecdotal evidence and conversations between students from varying schools and their prestige. If this is true, I doubt the editors of the "good" journals will admit to it, but worth asking.

I would by surprised if editors would automatically reject papers by anyone, and some journals practice triply-anonymized review, in which case no one knows the identity of a submitting author. On the other hand, some journals are only doubly-anonymized, in which case editors may know who the author of a submitted paper is--and it's always possible for bias to come into play when a person's identity is known. In any case, I wouldn't know how to gather good evidence one way or another about this issue aside from asking authors who are from unranked or low-ranked programs whether they get referee reports and/or publish in journals.

Do any editors or authors with experience here care to weigh in on this?

Norms for checking on the status of conditional acceptances?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Are the norms for emailing an editor to inquire about a submission's status any different for minor revisions/conditional acceptances than they are for initial submissions? Is it appropriate to email after just three months, say, if you still haven't heard back about a conditional acceptance?

I would think the norms are the same as for any submission. If three months have passed, you can always write to check on the status. But these are just my thoughts. 

What are yours?

Teaching asynchronous online in the ChatGPT era?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I am teaching an asynchronous online course next academic year. I am having a hard time thinking of ChatGPT-proof or ChatGPT resistant assignments for this class. ChatGPT seems like it is capable of doing all of the following:

-Essays
-Quizzes and exams (any question format)
-Discussion boards
-Reading response short essays
-Prompt ChatGPT and write about the responses

Are there any good options for assessments in asynchronous courses, given ChatGPT and other LLM AI bots?

Great question! I haven't ever taught online, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. However, at least when it comes to essays or short reading responses, my sense is that if one makes essay prompts sufficiently detailed, requiring students for example to engage with specific parts or passages of texts, it can be hard to produce a ChatGPT-written essay. There are also, of course, AI detectors that can help.

Does anyone else have any helpful tips or insights? It would be great to hear from readers in general, but particularly from people who teach asynchronous online.

Publishing a paper critiquing one's own work?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I've discovered a weakness in an argument I published recently. It would be very easy to write a paper pinpointing this weakness and strengthening the original argument to avoid it. Is this advisable? If so, how far should I go to hide the fact that I am the author of both papers from editors/referees?

Great questions! There was a great case of this recently, in which Hanno Sauer (Utrecht University) published a rebuttal to a paper he published just a year earlier critiquing the history of philosophy. 

Although one doesn't see this sort of thing very often, I personally think it's a nice reflection of intellectual honesty. We're after the truth as philosophers, are we not? So, if you think something you've published is mistaken in some way, why not critique it? Further, if you can use the critique to strengthen the original argument, that seems to me like all the more reason to do it!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Going on job-market after getting a TT job: how soon is too soon?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, Cam asks:

How soon is too soon to apply to another TT job after getting one? I was blessed with the good fortune of receiving a TT job. How long do I need to stay in the job before applying elsewhere? Even if I like it, there are jobs I'll like more: it seems like sending off a few applications per year would be the smart thing to do, when particularly desirable jobs for my profile come up. Would it be OK to move on after say only one year?

Fair question! We actually had a thread related to this back in January, and while we didn't receive too many comments, the general sentiment (which I share) is: it's your career--no one has a right to your employment. As another reader writes in a submitted follow-up comment to Cam:

On the one hand, you are always on the job market. Everyone should be open to changing jobs throughout their lives. In fact, each of us may need to at some point. But, on the other hand, do not think that you will endure yourself to your new colleagues by going on the market. In fact, if they get wind of the fact that you are applying to "more desirable" places it will just reinforce any thoughts they might have had that you were a flight-risk. So be aware of that. It is can hard to hide that you are looking for a job. One former colleague discovered that a junior colleague was on the job market because the photocopier jammed on the weekend, trapping pieces of her applications in the machine until Monday, when my colleague found them.

While I think it is generally unlikely that your colleagues will find out that you are on the market, it's a risk, but one that one can probably mitigate by exercising due care!

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Self-plagiarism, or building on previous ideas?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I am writing a short article for an anthology. Because of the length limit, I cannot fully develop some ideas and arguments. However, I still want to include many or even most of them. Will it be appropriate if I write a separate and longer paper later that basically includes the same ideas but develop them in detail? Or will this be a case of self-plagiarism? I think see some "famous" philosophers doing this sometimes, but I wonder what would be a good rule of thumb here.

At least offhand, this doesn't sound inappropriate, but maybe it depends on how much one develops the relevant ideas or arguments in the anthology chapter? I do know that many journals require authors to attest that papers are original and haven't been previously published "in whole or in part" (or some such). So, perhaps if the ideas are fleshed out in some detail in the anthology paper, then defending them again at greater length might run afoul of this standard?  

Another reader submitted the following reply:

Why wouldn't you just write another paper on the topic, without including "the same basic ideas"? Of course you can build on what you argue in this shorter paper, but why not write a new paper on the topic?

What do you all think?

Publishing on off-the-beaten track or mainstream topics?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I'm a grad student who works on a topic that some hardcore Western analytic people will think is weird/niche/not rigorous/not "real" philosophy.

This year I met someone at a conference who seemed to imply that EVEN IF I were to get a paper in this area published in a reputable journal, people would STILL be skeptical that what I do is worth taking seriously. They suggested that I try and publish on more "mainstream" topics to have a better shot on the job market.

But I would have thought getting any paper published in a reputable journal would have been pretty good evidence that what I do is worth taking seriously. How much weight should I give this person's advice?

FWIW, I would not change the topic of my dissertation to be more "trendy" or "mainstream." All I might do is put significant effort into writing an additional paper that is distinctly more "mainstream."

Excellent question! I think it may be a bit hard to say, without knowing more about the 'weird' topic in question. But when it comes to things like these I have three main thoughts:

1. All things being equal, you're probably going to do better work on things that genuinely interest you.
2. It's possible to have the best of both worlds: to publish on mainstream and niche topics.
3. Standing out on the job-market is important, and you can stand out by doing original/unique work.

Early in my career, the first year or two post-PhD, I worked on topics that didn't deeply interest me, but which I thought I might be able to publish in. Because I wasn't passionate about them, I struggled. As my career went along, I shifted to working on anything that interested me, mainstream or not--and I became much more productive. Finally, as a search committee member, my sense is that many candidates blend into each other by working on similar topics. It's hard to stand out in a job application pile, and working on something unique may help (though, of course, it may depend on what the topic is and how good/interesting the work is!).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

CV norms for different career stages?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a junior faculty member asks:

What are the norms around what to include on your CV at different stages of your career? I recently got a TT job after a couple of postdocs and received my Ph.D. 2ish years ago. My CV still has a number of grad-school related things on it: dissertation abstract, coursework, TA appointments, grad student service, etc. I don't want to give the impression that I'm still at the grad student stage, but I also don't know whether any of these things are still helpful or important for giving a picture of me as a scholar.

Good question! I'd definitely take grad school stuff off once in a TT job, but beyond this I'm not sure. 

What do you all think the norms are for CVs at different career stages, and why?

 

Times of the year when peer review is quicker/slower?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Are there periods of time throughout the year when the journal peer-review process is either quicker or slower?

I suspect, at least anecdotally, that peer-review tends to be quickest during the summer, when many faculty do not have teaching duties, and slowest during the end of fall and spring terms (when people's grading loads are highest). But, of course, this is just anecdotal speculation, and moreover, there are substantial differences in when academic terms begin or end across different institutions, countries, and hemispheres. So, I'm not sure!

Does anyone have any helpful insights? It could be great to hear from journal editors and reviewers!

Women Philosophers in the Twitter ‘Manosphere’ (or, that light-hearted Hume Tweet that ended in r*pe threats)

This is a guest post by Daisy Dixon, Lecturer in Philosophy at Cardiff University

Content warning:

This post includes discussion of abusive language, misogyny, body-shaming, and rape threats. The Cocoon’s mission is to be a safe and supportive forum that focuses on issues faced by early-career philosophers. We do not believe that this precludes all discussion of sensitive topics like these, and we are hosting this discussion in the belief that a safe and supportive discussion of the author’s story is both possible and a good use of this forum’s unique space in the profession, and for the author. Readers who may be sensitive to the above elements, please take note. Also please note that the blog moderators (Marcus and Helen) will moderate discussion carefully to ensure that discussion abides by the blog’s mission.

--

Having recently secured my first permanent post in Philosophy at Cardiff University (something I still cannot quite believe), two weeks ago I excitedly posted on Twitter a familiar meme: ‘What People Think Philosophers Look Like/ What We Actually Look Like’. For the respective clauses, I posted a photo of David Hume – resplendent in lace and wig – and then a photo of myself, casually dressed wearing a leather jacket and sunglasses.

Not that this Tweet needs spelling out, but the point I was making is that philosophy looks different nowadays – basically a version of the hashtag ‘#thisiswhataphilosopherlookslike’ – and this is worth celebrating.

The Tweet was also a bid to dispel stubborn beliefs about who can do philosophy. As Helen Beebee’s and Jennifer Saul’s 2021 SWIP report shows, along with other under-represented groups in philosophy (e.g., people of colour, LGBTQIA+ and those with disabilities), we still have a way to go to reach equal gender representation in academia – with women comprising 30% of permanent staff in UK philosophy faculties. So, part of the Tweet was to raise awareness that the landscape is changing, albeit slowly.

However, within an hour, the Tweet blew up.

Best practices for choosing external reviewers for tenure applications?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Are there any best practices or advice for how to choose external reviewers for a tenure application?

I wouldn't know, as my university doesn't use external reviewers. But I'm curious to hear from people at institutions that do! 

Anyone have any helpful tips to share?

Should journals reassess low publishing rates?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Philosophy has a notoriously low publishing rate, especially at the better journals, and as compared to other fields. Seeing the recent controversy with Wiley wanting more publications at the Journal of Political Philosophy, and the massive uproar against it, I’m curious why we aren’t looking at this as an opportunity to reassess and justify the low publishing rates. Would quality really become abysmal and journals predatory if the rate goes from 10% to 12% or even (gasp) 15%?

For readers who may be unacquainted with the recent JPP controversy, see here and here. I'm curious to hear what readers think!

Doing a good teaching demo on critical thinking?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

If you're asked to do a teaching demo on what you think is a difficult concept for students in a critical thinking course, is there an expectation you'll do something like necessary/sufficient; basic deductive proof; or is something outside the box potentially more acceptable given the nature of a CT class?

I am mostly concerned that the stuff I mentioned like necessary/sufficient, sound/unsound, deductive proof, etc, is actually pretty boring and overdone.

Good question. I'm inclined to think that "more creative is better", all things being equal, and that one should be all means get students involved in the classroom. But surely, it's important to do so in a way that is rigorous too. 

Do any readers have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Transferring into a higher-ranked PhD program?

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

I am in a tricky situation. I am an incoming PhD student at a low-ranking institution. Naturally, I want to maximize my chances on the job market post-graduation. In the last five months (since my first PhD applications were due), I have recieved five acceptances from very serious journals. I also have a perfect GPA, a perfect GRE score, and a master's degree from a respected university. I was waitlisted by most programs to which I applied. The director of graduate admissions at my top choice program told me that I came within a hair's breadth of a first-round acceptance and probably would have gotten one had news of my publications come sooner. He also told me that, based on my forthcoming work, I was "easily good enough" to excel in a top-five program.

So, here is my question: Should I try to transfer to a higher-ranked institution after a year or two at my current program? Would this be mercenary, ungrateful, or at all likely to improve my job prospects? I should emphasize that I actually quite like the faculty at my current program, based on my initial interactions with them, and that the university has granted me an extremely generous fellowship offer (comparable to the standard funding package at a top-ten program). I am temperamentally quite conscientious and loyal and would almost certainly feel guilty about jumping ship. However, the school's placement late is very low, and I have a family to feed.

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

There is nothing to be loyal to ... graduate school is professional training. If you are able to get that training at a place (i) that is more highly regarded, and (ii) has a better placement record, it seems like a no-brainer. Your currently faculty should be proud of you, not resentful.

I entirely agree. Given that many PhD students who start programs never finish, given that a PhD program can take anywhere from 5-8+ years (in the US), and given that of those who do finish, only a small proportion end up with permanent or TT faculty jobs, one owes it to oneself to do everything one can to put oneself into a position to be successful. And, as the OP writes, they have a family to look after. So, I say, go for it, and do it sooner rather than later. I transferred myself after 2 years in a PhD program (due to multiple faculty getting hired away by a different school), and very few of my classes transferred over--so it would have been much better to transfer after only one year!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

 

How can tenured faculty improve things for contingent faculty?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I am (hopefully) going to receive tenure in the coming year. I am thinking about what I want to do with that newfound security, and one thing I want to do is be a better ally to contingent faculty at my university. There are ways to do this that seem obvious to me, like participating in the picket line if their union ever calls a strike. But I'm wondering if anyone has advice about subtler things that could still make a difference. For example, at my university, permanent faculty receive computers from the university but contingent faculty do not. I am planning to try to motivate my department to fix this for our own faculty or object to the university's policy if we can't directly fix it. But I would love to read other ideas, if anyone is willing to share: how can tenured faculty help make things better for contingent faculty?

An excellent and important question! Do any readers have any helpful tips, experiences, or other insights?

Finding mentors and guidance while in a postdoc?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I'm between a grad program and a job, in a post-doc. In my grad program, I had great mentorship and guidance; in my post-doc, I have neither. I feel very adrift and mostly alone. (This may echo what others say about jobs that are not near other universities).

Maybe I feel like mentorship and guidance would be helpful for me at this point, and I don't know where to find it. There is also general loneliness, but that may be distinct. I've been trying to read and stay up to date on the field, and keep writing to stay engaged. It's all been moderately helpful, but I wonder if others have tips as to how to navigate this in-between phase? Maybe even how to stay motivated on the job market when no mentor seems to "have your back"?

I'm sorry this reader is dealing with this, but these are excellent questions that hopefully we can help with!

One thing that I did earlier in my career was apply for a 2 week NEH summer seminar, which was fantastic. I got to meet quite a few other early-career folk there, along with a few accomplished senior members of the profession who I developed helpful mentoring relationships with. While, to be honest, a lot of my early-career experience involved learning to stand on my own two feet, as it were, finding my own way without much guidance (something that I think is probably inevitable for a lot of early-career people), I will say that their mentorship was incredibly helpful at crucial times in my development and on the job-market. So, I'd definitely recommend applying to summer programs/institutes.

Does anyone else have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

When to withdraw a paper?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

When is the time to withdraw a paper from a slow publisher and look for a better venue elsewhere? I have agreed to write a paper for a collection of essays that the editors just keep pushing back further and further.

I agreed to write the paper in the spring of 21, submitted it in the fall of 21, and have been waiting ever since. Every couple of months, I ask the editors for an update, and they always tell me that something came up, but that the book will be finished soon.

On the one hand, I'm frustrated, but on the other hand, I also don't want to withdraw my paper and create new problems for the editors and the other authors who maybe need the publication more than I do. But after a year and a half of waiting, I'm starting to become anxious.

I think a year and a half is an absurd amount of time. I'd withdraw after 6 months or so, at least after a few emails to the editors to check on the status. As an author and reviewer, I value professionalism, and I don't think absurdly long review times are professional. So, if I were the OP, I'd withdraw now and submit somewhere else that has a better reputation for good turnaround times.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Journals with good turnaround times?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

About journal reviewing times:

I heard that the reviewing process is taking longer and longer in the last fewer years. As a PhD who is eager to get papers published, I was wondering whether there are mainstream and generalist journals that are known to have relatively short turnaround times for the reviewing process.

I have an impression that Synthese is reliable in this respect. On its website(https://www.springer.com/journal/11229) it says the median is 82 days from “Submission to first decision”; although this information is probably outdated.

For those who have more experience or inside information on this: are there journals that are particularly efficient in this respect? Are there mainstream journals that I should avoid?

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I just wanted to point your (and everyone else's) attention to the APA Journal Survey Project, which has a lot of data on review times: https://apasurvey.philx.org/. And of course you can help each other by submitting your own data!

The APA Journal Survey Project is a good resource, but does anyone know how up to day the information is? Also, while I'm happy to have people post below on their experiences journals with good turnaround times, I don't know how comfortable I am with people posting on journals with bad turnaround times (as blog comments are hearsay, and negative comments could hurt a journal's reputation, which could give rise to problems for me as blog moderator and administrator).

In any case, if you have had any good recent experiences with journals giving quick decisions, feel free to post on them below!

Grappling with a post-tenure slump?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I'm a tenured associate professor (9 years post phd), going through a bit of a post-tenure slump. Life has got in the way of research recently, after the big push to get tenure. I was steadily producing an article a year until about 2020, but the pandemic hit me hard.

That's all context for a specific question: how many hours a week do you, and should you, work on your research? I mean what they call 'deep work', so writing/revising or seriously reading material directly relevant to your work. When I was in grad school I was often told that 20 hours a week is about right for the PhD, but that's 4 solid hours per weekday and I don't think I'm at that now! (I use the pomodoro method and am counting very rigorously, so I'm not including eg bathroom breaks.)

Relatedly, do you tend to have multiple papers in different areas you're working on at the same time, or do you focus on one until it gets sent out, before moving on to another? I've always done the former strategy, but I seem to have ended up with a lot of 'pretty much done' papers in different areas that have been presented at a few conferences maybe, maybe rejected with comments from a journal, but I've not quite pushed them over the line to being published. A nice place to be in some ways, but as I said, it feels slump-y!

Any advice appreciated.

Believe it or not, post-tenure malaise is a real thing. Its existence may be hard to understand or empathize with, especially if you are an academic struggling on the job market or without tenure or a tenure track position. But still, as someone who spent a horrible 7+ years on the market myself, I can attest that post-tenure blues are real. While they were nowhere near the horror show for me that was the job market, I've been through them a few times (they seem to come and go). I don't know if I have any great advice for grappling with it well, other than that I try to find new philosophical issues that interest me and to finally pursue other things in pursuit of a more well-rounded human life that I just didn't have the time or emotional energy to do when I was on the market or seeking tenure.

In terms of answering the OP's questions, I don't have much time for research during the fall or spring semesters due to my teaching load, but I try to work on research pretty consistently during the summer (3-5+ hours a day on the weekdays, I'd say, depending on how inspired or not I'm feeling--sometimes I have research ideas I'm excited about, other times not). On that note, I also usually work on a few different projects simultaneously, as I usually get tired working on the same project all the time.

Anyway, I wish that I had better advice, but again, this is something that I struggle with a bit too! Do any readers have any helpful tips of insights for the OP?

Philosophy in France

This is the thirty-first installment of The Cocoon Goes Global, a series that gives a sense of what the philosophy profession looks like outside of the Anglophone West. This guest post is by, Cédric Paternotte is an assistant professor in philosophy at Sorbonne University (Science, Norms, Democracy research team)

1. France

France is a European country of about 67 million inhabitants, which has been a member of the European Union from its start (even if it was one of the few countries to vote against the adoption of the proposed European Constitution in 2005 in a national referendum). The national language is French, and despite a few regional accents, there are very few dialects. This due to the fact that French was imposed as a national administrative language as soon as the 15th century; a French Academy charged with managing and controlling its quality was created in the 17th century. France has long been, and still is, a heavily centralised country.

Politically, France is a democratic republic and has been since 1870, the start of the Third Republic. The First Republic arose after the 1789 revolution, but two periods of French Empires (under Napoleon and Napoleon III) preceded its current democratic streak. In France’s current political system, the legislative, executive and judiciary powers are separated. A president is elected every 5 years, as well as members of the National Assembly, all by direct universal suffrage; Senate members are renewed by half and by indirect universal suffrage, every 3 years. It’s fair to say that the President yields the most power overall (which is particularly striking in 2023, as I write these sentences). Despite recent trends to the contrary, French citizens still enjoy comparatively generous levels of healthcare, of retirement pensions, as well as limited official working hours.

The French education system is as follows: after 3 years in kindergarten, children spend 5 years in primary school, then 4 years in middle school and 3 years in high school, which ends with a national exam: the Baccalauréat (this is the traditional path; more work-oriented ones are possible). Then a typical higher education path would involve going to the University: a 3-year undergraduate school that may lead to a 2-year Master. But there is another option, which is specific to France: going to a so-called “preparatory class”, straight after the Baccalauréat, either in science, literature or business. These are work-intensive places, organisationally much more akin to high schools than to universities, and prepare their students for several competitive exams, after which one may enter engineering schools (including Polytechnique), business schools or one of the renowned Ecole(s) Nationale(s) Supérieure(s). This system is often opaque to foreigners: the reputation that some engineering schools have accrued in France doesn’t translate well abroad. But it is a fact that most educated or well-off parents actually aim for their children to do a preparatory school rather than to go to a university; a significant part of the best high-school students end up in one of the former. Still, whether it concerns universities or engineering schools, annual fees still are reasonably low: typical higher education isn’t expensive in France – unless one chooses private schools, of course.

2. Academia in France

A typical academic path would go as follows. After a graduate degree (either started in a university or a literary prep school), students would follow a Master, which finishes with their writing an essay. After a Master, if one wishes to work in the education and/or research system, there are several options. One may take a competitive exam in order to become a teacher. One may look for some PhD funding and do a PhD – even if the funding isn’t necessary, more and more advisors refuse to supervise non-funded students. But another very French-specific option is to prepare a national diploma called the Agrégation, which is particularly important in philosophy. Every year, a national program is produced: in philosophy, a list of themes, of authors, of foreign-language works. Once you have the Agrégation, you will normally become a philosophy teacher in the last year of high school. The Agrégation has long been, and still is to some extent, a tacit necessary condition for being hired in a university (that is, it wasn’t on the official list of documents, but you couldn’t hope to land a job without it). For this reason, after their master, many students still choose to try to get their Agrégation before even starting a PhD. But this requirement has slightly weakened with time, especially for analytic philosophy-inclined jobs.