The Philosophers' Cocoon

How to list guest-editing on a CV?

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

I apologize if this is silly. I'm a junior academic, and it's the first time I've done this. I agreed to co-edit a special issue of a Journal. How do I list this on my CV? Do I have an "Editorships" section under "Publications"? And then list the journal, volume #, and name of co-editor? If anyone has an example I could look at, I'd love that.

A few readers submitted responses. Brad writes:

This is how I did it. It is listed after the following two categories A. Books and Monographs B. Articles, Reviews and Letters* C. Journal Editing (Guest Editing). 2010. Invited Guest Editor of a special issue of Episteme: Journal of Social Epistemology on “Collective Knowledge and Science.” Contributors: Hanne Andersen, John Beatty and Alfred Moore, Alban Bouvier, Kristina Rolin, Kent Staley, and Paul Thagard. * The letters, incidentally, are letters published in the journal Science - I would not list them otherwise. They are refereed.

And Cam writes:

I was in this position. I have a separate section on my CV, called 'Journal Editing'. The item (which is the only item in that section) is listed as 'Co-editor of a special issue of [Journal] on [Topic] (YEAR).'

This seems right--it should have its own section. Does anyone disagree or do things differently?

Grad students catching typos in faculty work?

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

I'm a PhD student in a large department. Since workshops and seminars tend to focus on areas in which faculty have ongoing research, I often find myself reading draft articles or chapters written by my instructors.

I see lots of typos in these drafts, and I am tempted to point them out to the authors (privately, of course). But I don't know whether it's socially acceptable for PhD students to offer this kind of feedback to faculty. Since lots of you are faculty, I thought I'd ask: How would you feel if a PhD student sent you a marked-up copy of one of your drafts that identified a few typos? Relatedly: am I neglecting my professional duty by omitting this kind of feedback, if faculty have explicitly asked for feedback?

Several readers submitted replies. 

"Please do alert your professors of typos - they are annoying and easy to miss. So you could save them a real headache. People are generally not so touchy"

"I'm at the TT stage, and I'm extremely appreciative towards anyone who points out typos in my drafts. Not so much towards reviewers when they cite this as a reason for rejection though. To clarify, one's own typos are extremely to catch before submitting to journals. Better you than the submit button."

This seems right. I proofread my own papers and books dozens of times and somehow typos still find their way through. It sucks, and if a grad student helped me to avoid them, I'd be grateful!

Sources of funding for conference travel?

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

I came here to ask for advice on sources of funding for travel to conferences at which one has had a paper or abstract accepted. I'm a non-tenure track faculty member and exhausted my university's funding on the one other conference at which I've presented this academic year. I applied for travel assistance funding from the upcoming conference but didn't get it because it was allocated to applicants who have received no travel support from their universities this academic year (understandable). Does anyone know of other sources of funding that can be used for travel expenses to conferences? I'm just not finding any in the places I've searched. Also, I noticed a very similar question from jd on 12/15 but couldn't find a follow-up post in the conferences category. If there is one, please let me know! And if not, could there be one (please!). Thanks.

This was jd's post:
"I'm a non-tenure track faculty member with a very small travel stipend. I've been lucky enough to get papers accepted at multiple conferences, and I really want to go to all of them. I will use my entire travel stipend to travel to the first conference and am looking for additional travel funding.

I've searched Pivot, the APA site, and checked with conference organizers for funding and couldn't find anything that obviously applies to me. Lots of opportunities for grad students though! Any advice on where to look?"

Good question, though I don't know any good answers. Do any readers have any helpful insights or resources to share?

Blogging for graduate students?

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

I was wondering what might be the advantages and disadvantages of blogging as a graduate student. Especially if the blogging is oriented towards the public rather than academic philosophers.

The advantages, as far as I can tell, amount to having a "testing ground" for ideas, being able to fulfil some kind of responsibility towards the public, and maybe improving one's writing. The disadvantages are the opportunity costs of blogging as opposed to publishing, and quite possibly a poor evaluation of the graduate students by professional philosophers who might disagree with some of the more "badly defended," half-baked ideas published in the blog.

What do folks think?

I expect that people may have a variety of reactions to this, and I'm personally not sure what I would advise. While I'm obviously a blogger myself, I only started several years after receiving my PhD. When I was in grad school, I had a hard enough time getting my dissertation started and done, and I definitely didn't need any additional distractions then. But, of course, we're all different, so I think it would probably be best to hear from readers.

What do you all think?

Networking & mentoring for people in small departments?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks?

Two closely related questions for those of us in small dept gigs:

Is there a network to set up mentoring? When you're junior, these jobs can be very isolating. And if the few people immediately senior to you aren't great, or worse are tending toward poisonous, it can be really hard to see the forest or to make a good logging plan. I know some people have really thrived in small depts. (We see and appreciate you Marcus! And how does Gregg Caruso get it all done!) Is there any way to arrange for some sort of mentoring between junior and senior small dept folk?

Likewise, while I know that getting any kind of permanent employment is winning a lottery, sometimes the prize isn't quite what you'd hope for! https://americanliterature.com/author/w-w-jacobs/short-story/the-monkeys-paw

I wonder if there is a way for those of us stuck in the early career mud to have a happy hour or an anonymous vent board or something like that. (And for those hopeful to go into philosophy to know that lots of these jobs turn out to be not all that great, even if they are permanent or even TT.)

Good questions (and thanks for the kind words!). I don't know if there are any kinds of networks to "set up mentoring." As of a few years ago, my college has a nice mentoring program for new faculty that includes one person from the department and one outside mentor--and my sense is that it has worked quite well. I'd definitely encourage people at other places to try to start something like this if they don't have one already. But, beyond this, I don't know.

As for setting up an early career "happy hour", if anyone wants to start up early-career Zoom get-togethers (or something like that), I'd be happy to relay information about them on the Cocoon (as guest posts inviting people to join, reminders of upcoming get-togethers, etc.). I think something like this could be a cool way for early-career people who are otherwise isolated to get to know more people and develop a better network. I don't have the time to set something like this myself, but if someone does it, do let me know!

As for an "anonymous vent board", I'd worry about this. As I'm sure some readers remember, a few years back there were a series of anonymous boards like this (the "metablogs"), and they were problematic (to put it mildly--in fact, if I recall, many of these boards were shut down for slander).

Anyway, these are my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from people in small departments! 

Undergraduate grades & grad applications

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a nervous grad school applicant asks:

I have applied for graduate school in philosophy and have a question that is just scratching at the back of my mind: how much of a red flag are some A-'s and B+'s in undergraduate coursework when it comes to applying to top 30 PhD programs? In my case, I've taken 20 philosophy courses and have A's in all of them except for two A-'s and two B+'s. Assuming the rest of my application is up to par (I think it is) would those non A's be a big problem?

A couple of A-'s and B+'s don't sound too bad to me, but then again I've never served on a grad admissions committee. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I am serving in a competitive program, and from what I saw, your transcript will appear a little weaker than those that have bunch of A+s and no Bs. But yours will by no means exclude your application from consideration: it is still very good! The other part of your package will be the difference maker. (P.S. maybe I am wrong, but I take the B+s in graduate studies more of a red flag.) So, in short: not a red flag.

Do any other readers have any other helpful insights or experiences to share?

Submitting to a conference that publishes a collected volume while a paper is at a journal?

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

I’ve come across a CFA for a conference that fits perfectly with some of my work. The call states that the organizers anticipate publishing the conference papers in a collected volume. However, the paper I would present is already under review at a journal (it has a fairly long turnaround time, but I cannot exclude the possibility that the paper might be published around the time of the conference, if accepted). Journal publications are also what matter the most for promotion at my department, so I would hesitate to withdraw the paper from the journal and publish it in a volume. But I would still consider it valuable to present at the conference, as it includes networking, being exposed to new work by others, etc.

Is it considered inappropriate to submit an abstract for a conference without having the intention of contributing to a collected volume? If not, at what stage would it be best to inform the organizers? And would it look bad if I should end up presenting a paper that has just been published ahead of print?

Good questions. I've been in a similar situation before, and was equally confused about what to do. Another reader submitted the following reply:

Until your paper is actually accepted for publication you should feel free to continue to submit it to conferences - you cannot assume it will be accepted by a journal. And conference volumes are uncertain things - these days organizers are under pressure to say such things to the bodies funding the conferences. But they do not all come to fruition, and even those that do can take six years (as I experienced early in my career).

What do you all think?

Writing good responses to reviewer comments?

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

I'd love to see some advice on how to write a good response to reviewer comments. In particular, I'm wondering whether it's appropriate to explain a response to Reviewer B, for example, in part by explaining what Reviewer A requested. For example, Reviewer B suggests changes to section 1. Reviewer A suggests a change which indicates that scrapping section 1 altogether was the way to go. In responding to Reviewer B, would it ever be appropriate to explain that section 1 was scrapped because of both reviewers criticisms? Or is one supposed to restrict their responses only to what each reviewer has suggested and make no reference to the other reviewer's comments. Thanks!

Good question! One reader submitted the following reply:

Write the response for the editor - so: "because Ref1 suggested changes X and Y in Sect 1, and Ref2 suggested that Sect 1 was unnecessary, I have decided eliminate Sect 1. ..."

I wonder whether this is enough, though. If you scrap section 1 of a paper because of Reviewer A suggested it but you don't explain why to Reviewer B, couldn't Reviewer B end up puzzled? What if they don't understand why you've scrapped it and wish that you'd kept it? For these reasons, I'm inclined to think it may be best to explain changes like these to both reviewers, not just to the editor (since the editor might not forward those comments to either reviewer).

What do you all think?

The crisis in publishing – how to make it slightly less awful (Guest post by the Editors of Analysis - 3 of 4)

By Stacie Friend, David Liggins, and Lee Walters

Philosophy journals are overwhelmed with submissions. We are all aware of the problems this creates. It makes it harder for authors to get timely verdicts on the papers they submit, it makes it harder for journals to reach those timely verdicts, and it means that many potential referees are overwhelmed with requests for referee reports.

The profession needs a solution to this crisis: a better way of doing things, and a way of switching to it from the way we do things now. We admit that we have no solution. Our goal here is more modest: to make some suggestions for how to make things slightly better.

First, let’s cheer ourselves up with some ways in which philosophy journal article publishing is doing relatively well. In contrast to some other disciplines, philosophy usually uses anonymous review: either double-anonymity (where the author and referee are unaware of each other’s identities) or triple-anonymity (where, in addition, the editors don’t know the author’s identity – this is the system we use at Analysis). (Sam Andrews has compiled some data on philosophy journals’ anonymous review practices: https://pjip.carrd.co/#spread). Outside of philosophy, triple-anonymity is rare: of the four triple-anonymous journals Oxford University Press publishes, three are philosophy journals. (In case you are wondering, the fourth is the Journal of Victorian Culture.) No system is perfect, but we think that anonymous review allows editors to make more objective decisions. Also, some disciplines allow authors to propose possible referees for their journal submission. But this runs the risk of creating mutual appreciation societies. So it’s a good thing it’s not the norm in philosophy.

Now for some suggestions for making things slightly better.

On Gilles Deleuze's birthday: on the philosophical significance of co-authoring

Today, January 18, is Gilles Deleuze's (1925-1995) birthday. The French philosopher would've become 99 had he lived to see the day. He died at the age of 70, in 1995 following a long pulmonary illness that plagued him for much of his life, which either drove him to suicide, or perhaps led him to accidentally fall out of a window. 

I only very recently got into his work, as I read his monographs on Spinoza and Nietzsche (both excellent). I am intrigued by the inherent paradoxical nature of Deleuze as a philosopher. He focuses on liberty, resisting societies of control, and standing out from the crowd, refusing to vote for your own oppressors, refusing to be tied down by conventional morality, for which he took inspiration in both Nietzsche and Spinoza. At the same time, he was for all appearances a regular guy, married to Denise Paul "Fanny" Grandjouan) from 1956 until his death, he raised two children with her, living a quiet life where he did not travel much.  

Deleuze is known for co-authoring with his good philosophical friend Félix Guattari, a psychoanalyst. 

I've written about philosophical friendships and their importance on the Cocoon earlier, here.

Research & reading tips for people in teaching-intensive jobs?

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

I teach a lot, but still try to write a lot too. So what happens? I get an idea; I then have a vague recollection of a paper or two in the area that I should probably read and cite; but otherwise I just want to write MY paper, and don't have the time--I teach a 4/4--to read up like I did in graduate school. (I'm also not going to leisurely sit on things, let it be a conference paper first, and so on - I want to get stuff out.). Plus, I am not even sure why I should feel the pressure to dig into every related piece, when I just want to get my ideas out. But oh, right, no journal will review my papers if the reference list is too short. But who has the time to research like they did in grad school? Why is the journal standard set for the spaciousness of R1 research conditions?

Summary of predicament: I have no problem writing despite a heavy teaching load; the problem is that my environment does not allow me to approach writing like a graduate student, or postdoc, or someone at an R1. And I don't plan to be someone who just saves writing for the summer.

Tips?

Good questions! I'm in a pretty teaching-intensive job (a 3/3 that due to longer-than-normal class-times is more like a 4/4), but I'm able to get a good amount done and the reference lists in my papers tend to be pretty long. A few tips that I have:

1. Try to develop teaching strategies that require less grading and course prep --> focus more on class discussion.
2. Focus on research during summer and winter breaks (this is when I get most of my work done)
3. Do a few quick Google Scholar and PhilPapers searches on your topic prior to writing, to see if anyone has published "your idea" already -- it saves a lot of time!
4. Subject to 3, write first, read later: I almost always write "MY paper" when I have an idea, putting in footnotes wherever it seems to me like I should probably cite something. Then, after I have something like a full draft, I read up on stuff in my free time, working things into my references.

How about other people who do research in teaching-intensive jobs? Any helpful tips for the OP?

What to do as an author when a paper takes forever to go into print?

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

What is it permissible to do in light of an accepted paper taking very long to actually reach print?

I have a paper, that was accepted in April last year, but is still "Awaiting Production Checklist". I haven't heard from the journal since it was accepted, and looking through the journal website, it seems like lots of paper take a long time from acceptance to being published online even though they have an online first publication model. (As a side note, there seems to be no pattern as to when accepted papers are published - some accepted more recently than mine have been published, others accepted even longer ago have only just been published - what is going on here?)

My problem is that I want this paper published (not just accepted) so that others might read it, and because I think the arguments could be quite important for the field. I'm also early career, and it would help with my name recognition - I'm also somewhat worried someone might scoop me even though the paper has been accepted.

I have the paper on my website, but I would like it to show up on philpapers and google scholar, so that people can find it. Is there a way of doing this? Alternatively, is it acceptable to upload the paper as a pre-print somewhere (i.e. SSRN) even though the paper has been accepted?

Good questions. I know a lot of people upload preprints to PhilPapers, and I try to do this whenever possible--but I also know that some publishing contracts allow this and others don't. Some contracts only allow one to post preprints on a personal website, for example, others allow the posting of preprints on not-for-profit archives but not for-profit sites (like academia.edu), etc. So, I guess I'd recommend reading one's publishing contract as a first-step.

On the other hand, I've heard some people say that they just ignore publishing contracts, on the grounds that they don't feel any duty to meet contractual obligations with large for-profit publishing companies and are unlikely to get in any trouble for it. Personally, I tend to think that if I sign an agreement, I should uphold it--but I will admit that it is frustrating, as it can probably prevent one's papers from being as widely read as they might if one were to post preprints.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear what other people think. Any thoughts/tips for the OP?

Major-revisions verdicts and word limits?

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

I often find that when I receive a "major revisions" decision on a paper, what reviewers are asking me to do places me well outside of the word limit of the paper. In fact, oftentimes I purposefully excluded the information they'd like to see precisely because I needed to cut sections to meet the word limit. I'd love to see some suggestions on how to deal with this. How can I respond to all of the reviewers' suggestion without the paper ballooning to twice its initial length?

Excellent question. One other reader submitted the following reply:

I have found the best way to address these concerns is to make all changes, and then work on editing the paper down to size. I have found that when journals ask for MINOR revisions, and you make changes that take you a bit over the limit they usually do not care (in my case, NEVER care) But major revisions are a different matter - the editor is far less committed to seeing the paper accepted. They are giving you chance, so work with them, and do not push your luck by sending in a bloated paper. See the comments by the editors of Analysis: "It’s widely agreed that many papers are longer than they need to be". In my experience, this is so true. Learn to write lean.

This is interesting advice--I'd never heard that editors are likely to be more flexible with word limits for minor revisions. Do any other readers have any helpful insights or experiences to share?

What should I bear in mind when I receive a verdict from a journal? Guest post by the Editors of Analysis (2 of 4)

This is the second of four guest posts by the Editors of Analysis. The Editors' aims are to "give some guidance to prospective authors and to contribute to public debate about philosophy publishing."

It is hoped that the first three posts (including this and the previous post) will generate some discussion. Then in the fourth and final post the Editors plan to respond to some of the comments received.

Please note that the Editors will not respond to comments in this thread. But please do weigh in and discuss below - the better the discussion, the more illuminating the final response post by the Editors is likely to be!

-----

What should I bear in mind when I receive a verdict from a journal?

By Stacie Friend, David Liggins, and Lee Walters

Being a journal editor is a privilege – even if it can be a time-consuming privilege! In particular, it allows you to see the publication process from a different perspective. In this post, we’d like to draw on our experience of journal editing to offer authors some suggestions on how to understand verdicts from journals, and the time it takes journals to reach a decision. The sorts of journals we are thinking of here are busy, highly selective ones, because that is where our experience lies. Some of what we have to say will already be well known to those with more experience of the profession, but we hope it will be useful to those starting to submit journal articles for publication. We’ll close by proposing that journals should always give authors some explanation of why they chose the verdict they did.

How much can you get done if you only work a few hours a day? (Guest post by Paul De Font Reaulx)

By Paul De Font Reaulx (PhD Student, University of Michigan)

In my experience, being an aspiring academic involves a lot of autonomous work on long-term projects with relatively little feedback that makes clear when you have made progress. This can make it hard to have a sense of what you’re concretely getting for each hour devoted. For example, I expect few of us could say with any confidence what the concrete result would be of working one more hour per day for a month.

I think this vague intuitive grasp of what we can produce with our time can lead to a few negative outcomes. For example, some of us might be familiar with the experience of devoting a lot of time to a project because it is important, only to procrastinate until an impending deadline makes the value of our time concrete. This plausibly causes stress and guilt, and in the worst case burnout. Most obviously, however, it robs us of time we could be spending on other things.

In an attempt to make the value of my own time more concrete, I tried to figure out what I should expect to get done if I worked a few hours per day for some period of time. I found the results valuable and wrote up this post to share them in case anyone else would benefit as well. The main takeaway is that the classic advice of writing every day seems, unsurprisingly, to be good advice.

In what follows, I estimate the total hours gained from a period of consistent work and compare this to estimates of the total hours required to complete a range of projects. I then check how these results are affected by variations, such as working more or taking a break. Finally, I compare the numbers to other leisure activities.

One Paper, One Reviewer: An Easy Amelioration of the Referee Crisis (Guest post by Mahmoud Jalloh)

By Mahmoud Jalloh

The Crisis and Extant Solutions

There have been a number of posts on the blogosphere regarding what has been called a “referee crisis” in philosophy. This crisis manifests itself in long review times both due to a lack of willing reviewers and willing but slow reviewers (perhaps due to a small subset of the community being disproportionately asked to review). I will not recount (or contest) the evidence for such a crisis here. All the readers know tales of papers under review for a year, etc.

The crisis is essentially a mismatch between the supply of journal referees and demand induced by journal submissions. Some solutions have been proposed. Demand side proposals include: increasing publication rates to reduce papers in the review process (and maybe increasing the number of prizes available for prestige differentiation or maybe reducing word counts), David Velleman’s crusade to ban grad student publications, Jennifer Whiting’s slow philosophy, and radical suggestions to move towards a norm of post publication peer review (see practical and philosophical discontents). Supply side proposals include: incentivizing peer review and getting more reviewers on editors’ radars. And lest you think this problem is exclusive to philosophy—suggestions from other academic disciplines include abolishing the R&R.

"Why Philosophy?" A new Substack by Céline Leboeuf (FIU)

Céline Leboeuf (Florida International University) has a new Substack, "Why Philosophy?", featuring short essays by philosophers addressing questions such as:

• What is philosophy to you? 
• How were you first introduced to philosophy?
• How do you practice philosophy today?
• Why is philosophy important to you?
• What books, podcasts, or other media would you recommend to anyone interested in philosophy?

The first piece, by David Livingstone Smith, is now up!

Tips for obtaining leadership positions in philosophy associations?

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

I'm considering going up for promotion to full professor in the next few years. One of the criteria the promotion committee will be looking at is 'professional recognition' which includes holding an office in a professional organization or association. I've never been asked to hold such an office, or even been aware of any nomination procedures for such. Outside of just starting my own philosophy association and appointing myself president, how do I get a leadership position of some sort in a philosophy association? If anyone is looking, I'm volunteering.

Interesting question. One reader submitted the following reply:

The people who are elected to these positions are people who have been involved in the organizations for years. Though they involve some work, they also carry some honour - it is a small reward of sorts for contributing to the organization. So this is a bad strategy on your part. Incidentally, I belong to PSA, BSPS, APA, EPSA, AAAS, and HOPOS. So it is probably wise to support some of the professional organizations.

I didn't see Travis as suggesting any particular strategy, but otherwise this reply seems right: one plausible prerequisite to get appointed to a leadership position in an organization is to first get involved in it! All the same, that's not saying too much. 

Are there particular ways to get involved in a professional organization (say, the APA or any of the other organizations the above respondent mentions) that Travis might pursue to better position himself for a leadership position later? It would be great to hear any tips from people who are 'in the know'!

Getting into a top PhD program following a post-MA break?

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

Can I still get into top philosophy PhD programs after a break, following my MA?

I've always been a kind of all-or-nothing type of person, studying philosophy only at top international schools. Last year, after my MA from a well-known terminal program in the U.S., I tried for the top 10 (and only top 10) PhD programs and didn't get in, except for two waitlists that didn't work out. Now, I'm in a high-tech research/writing job, wondering if my chances for those elite PhD spots are already gone. I'm thinking of applying again in the future, but I'm not sure if there's any clear way of collecting more prestige to make my application matter to these schools. I have the option of making myself an American citizen in the next few years, which would matter I suppose, but the gap between my MA and applications is growing larger. Any advice?

I don't think a year off in industry is likely to negatively impact the OP's changes for getting into a top PhD program. How much time away from academia might? I'm not sure. But elite PhD programs are so selective that one's chances of getting in are tiny to begin with. In any case, another reader submitted the following reply:

what do you mean by top international schools: Cambridge and Oxford? Munich? NYU in Dubai? It makes a big difference to your answer.

The OP hasn't replied, but I'm curious what everyone thinks. Does anyone have any helpful insights?

What sort of referee reports does the profession need? Guest post by Editors of Analysis (1 of 4)

This is the first of four guest posts by the Editors of Analysis. The Editors' aims are to "give some guidance to prospective authors and to contribute to public debate about philosophy publishing."

It is hoped that the first three posts (beginning with this one) will generate some discussion. Then in the fourth and final post the Editors plan to respond to some of the comments received.

Please note that the Editors will not respond to comments in this thread. But please do weigh in and discuss below - the better the discussion, the more illuminating the final response post by the Editors is likely to be!

-----

What sort of referee reports does the profession need?

By Stacie Friend, David Liggins, and Lee Walters

Every professional philosopher is familiar with the problems that the philosophy journal publication system is facing. The system is simply overwhelmed with submissions, and this makes finding referees for them increasingly difficult. The situation is frustrating for everyone: for authors trying to get their papers accepted, for journal editors trying to make timely decisions, and for potential referees, who often find themselves bombarded with requests for reports.

Moving to a research-supportive job before or after tenure? How?

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

I've heard different things about moving jobs before/after tenure. Is it easier after or before, or in what circumstances? I see sometimes senior people moving around a bunch, and the process seems much more informal for those sorts of moves. I'm looking to find a more research-supportive job and wondering what the likelihood of this is, and how to increase the odds. Is it done via networking, making it known to various people that I'm "available", so to speak, rather than just applying to positions posted on philjobs (which tend to be junior)?

Excellent questions. Another reader submitted the following comment:

I think it is much easier to move before tenure. I did move from a 4 year state college to a research university - but after 15 years! I was more or less resigned to staying where I was - a place that offered little support for research. My sense, based on my experience, is that you have to publish a hell of a lot, in good places, and work that gets attention in order to move post tenure from a teaching institution to a research institution. I know at least one person who has an endowed chair at an elite university whose work has less than 60 % of the number of citations that my work has. But he got there early in his career. And I did not. Since the move, I have published much more, and have been invited to numerous conference, etc.

This is my sense too. As for how to best increase the odds of moving to more research-supportive jobs (whether by networking or just applying to positions), I've heard before from well-placed sources that the former works better--which coheres with broader research that the vast majority of jobs are obtained through networking. But this is just what I've heard.

Do any other readers have any helpful tips or insights? It would be great to hear from people who have moved before or after tenure, as well as from people on the hiring side of things.

We're hiring! TT position (AOS/AOC: Open) at The University of Tampa

The job ad is here and should be on PhilJobs soon!

Position Details

The Department of Philosophy & Religion within the College of Arts and Letters at The University of Tampa invites applications for a tenure-track position as Assistant Professor of Philosophy beginning in August 2024.

The University of Tampa is a medium-sized, comprehensive, residentially-based private institution of more than 10,000 undergraduate and graduate students.  The University is ideally situated on a beautiful 110-acre campus next to the Hillsborough River, adjacent to Tampa's dynamic central business district, which is a growing, vibrant, diverse metropolitan area.  UT reflects this vibrancy; with 24 consecutive years of enrollment growth UT boasts 260 student organizations, a multicultural student body from 50 states and more than 100 countries, and "Top Tier" ranking in U.S. News and World Report.

The area of specialization (AOS) is OPEN. The area of concentration (AOC) is OPEN.  The teaching load is 3 courses (12 credit hours) per semester.  The successful candidate must be able to teach introductory-level undergraduate courses in both Religion and Philosophy, upper-level undergraduate courses in Philosophy, and a general-education philosophy/humanities course with the theme “Making Sense of the Local and the Global” that is part of the general-education curriculum.  An ability to teach Metaphysics and Epistemology (broadly construed) and/or History of Philosophy (particularly Modern Philosophy) is highly desirable.

We are looking for a colleague who is committed to excellence in undergraduate teaching, who is skilled at teaching general-education courses in ways that excite students while introducing them to meaningful inquiry in both Religion and Philosophy, who is able to attract a diverse group of students to become members of our department, and who shares our department’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion through inclusive pedagogy and research.

Are there remote postdocs?

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

Are there post-docs that do not require relocation? That is, "remote" post-docs, or at least predominantly remote, which may require occasional in-person visits?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I know someone who has such a post doc in Europe. To be frank with you, it is not worth it. You are signaling that you are leaving the profession. It looks like you want to have someone pay you and you just do your own thing in your own place, not contributing at all to the intellectual culture of the institution supporting you.

I wonder whether other people agree. What do you all think?

Rejections when referees recommend R&R?

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

How common it is for journal editors to reject a paper even if the referee reports recommend an R&R? My paper got rejected from a high-profile journal but the reports had notes in the lines of "when revising, author should do X" or "If I were to revise this paper...". Recent discussion here has made it clear that appealing a decision is nigh futile; I guess I'm asking to lick my wounds more effectively.

I know it stinks as an author (it's happened to me too), but my sense is that this fairly common, particularly at journals with low acceptance rates. As one reader put it in a follow-up comment:

Remember that the referees are only offering advice. You can certainly take their advice about how to revise your paper. But the editor must balance the advice of the two or three referees. And even two R&Rs do not always lead to an acceptance or even an invitation to submit a revised manuscript. Some of his is an artefact of the size of the journal - if they do not publish a lot of article, and have many submissions, many 2XR&Rs will be rejected.

It's also worth remembering here that editors often read papers themselves to arrive at a final verdict after referee reports are received. 

Do any other readers have any additional insights to share?