Publishing replies to papers by senior figures while in grad school?

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

I am a PhD student with qualms about writing a reply to a recent paper that I have found both very engaging and in many respects objectionable. The "problem" is, this paper is published in a reputable journal and penned by quite a reputable mid-to-late-career author. The journal accepts replies to published pieces, and I believe in my ability to write something of value. Yet I am very uncertain whether it is wise and/or prudent to engage in this debate due to clear disbalance of seniority. Usually, replies to articles seem to be authored by scholars who have a standing / are somewhat known in the subfield.

I wonder what is the general consensus on this matter. Are my intuitions completely wrong? Should PhD students feel free to publish replies to senior colleagues?

I don't see any reason not to publish a reply. If you think the paper by the senior figure is mistaken, go for it! This is what philosophy is about, right? We give and respond to each other's arguments. If anything, I suspect a good reply to a reputable senior figure in the field would reflect well on the author. Sure, maybe the senior figure might not like the reply, but that's life, right? What power do they have over one's career?

I guess the only thing that I would recommend is that if the OP finds the figure's paper "in many respects objectionable", it's probably wise to make sure that they compose the paper in a way that engages with the author's arguments respectfully. When one finds an argument objectionable (particularly if one finds it morally objectionable), it's possible that one may be tempted to engage in heightened rhetoric in the paper, which I suspect would not come across well to reviewers, editors, or readers.  

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[Dan Weiskopf]

"Objectionable" usually means "distasteful, problematic, offensive," but here I am guessing the OP means "open to objections," which is more neutral. I'd choose a word that doesn't invite this confusion.

In any case, OP, I don't see why you shouldn't submit a response. My first publication was a long and highly critical review of a book by Jerry Fodor, followed up by a coauthored response to another of his papers. Both of those were when I was a graduate student. I doubt either of them had any negative effect on my career. It's no different from writing a paper that raises the same criticisms but isn't framed by the journal as a direct reply.

[Daniel Weltman]

I would say OP's concerns are not compelling. Feel free to publish the reply.

But do keep in mind that actually you can't publish a reply: the journal can. You can write a reply, and hope it gets published. If it doesn't, you'll have a paper you spent a lot of time on that you probably can't publish anywhere else. That might not be the best use of your time.

I am very pro-reply; I've had a bunch published and I hope to have a bunch more published. But I've written many more than have gotten published, and a lot of that effort was maybe not the best use of my time.

[Reply]

When I was in graduate school one of my peers published a reply piece to an article by a reasonably well established author, in the journal SHPS. This proved to be very good for my peer. He secured a job quite quickly. Over the course of his career he has not been a high volume publisher, but this early intervention led to one tenure track offer his first year out, and then another his second year out.
I can think of another quite well established philosopher who was told by a professor in graduate school that he should address one of his critics - this too paid off.

[Bill Vanderburgh]

The counter-argument to the point about potential wasted effort is that a reply is a lot less potential wasted effort than a full paper. This sounds like a good way to get a first publication, go for it.

[Wrong question?]

I wouldn't worry too much about annoying the relevant senior figure. Honestly, they're as likely as not to be happy to (a) see discussion of their work, and (b) potentially get a quick publication responding to your reply.

You touched on one larger worry (that if the original journal rejects your reply, the paper might not place anywhere).

Potentially a larger worry is that reply papers do not carry as much prestige as you might want them to, so this might not be the best path to getting a tenure-track job if it takes a lot of time to write.

That's not to say you shouldn't publish the paper, but I wouldn't treat the senior scholar's potential consideration as the decisive factor here.

Perhaps you could consider writing a larger, non-reply piece incorporating some of the same ideas?

[Chris]

My first publication, during my Master's, was a reply to a paper by a fairly senior figure. My supervisor and another faculty member in an unrelated area both encouraged me to write and publish it, and doing so had no bad consequences that I know of. (The other faculty member, a highly research-active full Professor, made a similar comment to Bill's above: that it was a good way to get a first publication, or something along those lines.)

[academic migrant]

It's really worth thinking about developing the reply into a standalone paper. Response pieces risk having limited venue. Think about justifying the paper's existence independently. Does it make a good contribution to your field? If it does, then it may be worth a bit more of your time.

[Emma]

I've never met a philosopher who would be annoyed at anyone writing a thoughtful response to their work. Go for it - it will probably also be a fairly quick way to get a publication.

[UK Postdoc]

I haven't yet seen anyone suggest to discuss the reply with the author of the original paper. I believe that most philosophers, even senior ones, don't mind a friendly email with a couple of questions about someone's paper. This serves two purposes: (1) it allows one to ensure that the reply does not misunderstand the original paper, and that any 'obvious' responses to the reply are covered; (2) it will make the original author feel like they've had a fair chance to have a fair hearing.

Of course, there are also reasons against this practice, especially against sharing the entire reply. For one, it means that the original paper's author cannot blindly peer-review the reply. But as far as I am concerned, a 'pre-discussion' is both a diplomatic course of action and will likely lead to a better reply paper.

[brushed off]

UK Postdoc
There is a risk of contacting a person who has author a piece you plan to publish a critical reply to. First, if they are a senior figure, they may perceive your reaching out as some sort of grasping for free help, when they are over burdened with supporting their own grad students, etc. I was really brushed off by someone from Rutgers, despite the fact that one of his peers told me he had said something good about me and my work. And I was also just competed brushed off in the hallway of an APA when I tried to talk to another giant, who is now at Columbia. I'd say, just try and publish the piece.