How can we help you? (May 2024)

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

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 (including in the age of A.I.)
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask away - we're here to help! 

Finally, a quick reminder of the following NEW RULE: in the past, I have allowed people to submit follow-up comments to queries in these threads, and sometimes included those comments in new posts on this thread's queries. Given the number of comments and replies that are submitted, this has become infeasible for me to keep track of. So, please only submit queries in the thread below, not responses to queries already submitted. If you'd like to respond to a query, please wait until I actually post on the person's query myself and comment in that thread instead!

Comments

[Hermias]

Ethics of post-acceptance edits.

What are the limits on post-acceptance edits? Presumably it is fine to spell check, add a clarifying sentence or two, etc. Suppose that R2 asks you to address an objection, so you do. But really you think that it’s a waste of space to address this silly objection so you delete it post-acceptance. I assume that in most cases the editor is not paying such careful attention that you would be caught.

[responding to referees]

When writing cover letters for revised submissions, is there a preference for summarizing each referee comment or copy-and-pasting an entire comment when explaining the revisions made in response? Also, more generally are there any common mistakes or kiss-of-deaths made in response to comments.

[Sort of Niche]

Is it ever okay to submit a basically-new paper based on a rejected paper to the same journal that rejected the first version? Another way of framing the question - at what point (if ever) does a paper become so different as for it to be acceptable to submit to the same journal it was rejected from?

I had a paper rejected from a journal (rightfully so), and have since basically re-written a new paper with a very similar vibe. Only ~15% of the content is word-for-word from the old version, the thesis/framing are completely different, and the main argument is completely different. However, some of the key moves and examples are the same, and my guess is that it would be pretty easy to tell that this paper was based on the first one if you had read both. Their vibes and spirit are definitely very very similar. Neither referee objected to the vibe or spirit of the paper (in fact, both said that a substantially revised version of the paper could be published and the core ideas were promising).

There are few journals who have a record of being open to publishing in the niche sub-field the paper is in, which means it would be great if I could send it back to this journal. I wouldn't, however, want to do anything that might be viewed as disrespectful or deceptive to the editors of the journal, or submit it if it's standard to desk reject papers that seem vaguely similar to past submissions. Any advice would be welcome!

[metrics focused]

When should we expect the next PGR? Lots of folks have moved or retired and some programs have shrunk while others expanded, it's feels like the 2021 report is already out of date.

[Summer Scholar]

Grad student here. I've been fortunate enough to have been selected for a few (competitive, application required) funded summer programs this and last year. These seem significant enough to put on a CV given they represent training outside of normal coursework and success in an academically competitive endeavor. But these fit squarely neither under the traditional sections of "Course Work" or "Grants/Rewards" (unless for the latter one stretches, perhaps a bit too dubiously, a stipend to be a grant/reward -- but this seems inappropriate). I've poked around others' CVs but not found similar sorts of things listed.

Are these sorts of things typically just left off CVs? Do they get squeezed into other traditional sections, albeit with explicit qualifications? Or if one participates in enough of them, do they become their own section?

[Future Applicant]

I'm planning to apply to PhD programs next year, and my interests are somewhat interdisciplinary across philosophy and law (though not in analytic jurisprudence). I'd happily work with many faculty members who joint appointments between philosophy and law. (Eg, Shiffrin at UCLA, Hershovitz at Michigan, Keating at USC.) I've seen some general advice about the propriety of saying you'd like to work with specific faculty. I wonder how this changes when the faculty have less connection with the philosophy department, but still more than a mere courtesy appointment. Might it be a bad look to list these professors, since it may give the impression that I'm less interested in doing "pure" philosophy? Thank you!

[Phil-Theo Student]

So many people emphasize publishing articles in prestigious journals, beginning while you are in graduate school. While not denying the importance of this, I am wondering if a holistic publication record is more important for recent PhD graduates. By this I mean, publishing in respectable (if not highly prestigious) journals, having some chapters published, having a few book reviews, maybe some magazine articles, decent conference participation--showing that you are competent and willing to participate in all forms of output. Do people think that this sort of planning/output is a good idea or missing the point too much? (PS: I ask this as one who is less interested in being hired at the best research institutions, but as someone who is interested interested in a more common, though respectable, position.)

[A Philosopher Named Slickback]

When, if at all, should you quit philosophy?

What if one is four postdocs in? What if someone is only adjuncting and not publishing? What if you have published but have been adjuncting for ten years straight, thus having no hope of landing a TT job? How should new grad students prudently think about their stay in academia if things go wrong (like the norm implies) before going on to something else(consider this question coming from someone who is not independently wealthy and has no financial safety net)?

[Sarah]

Should I aim at a narrow(er) area of expertise?

I recently secured a tenure-track position, and at this stage of my career, I've observed that most of my colleagues and admired philosophers have a well-defined expertise encapsulated in one or two keywords. However, due to the instability of my career thus far and my broad range of interests, I find it challenging to focus on the same specific topic for an extended period. I often switch to whatever has recently captured my interest or, more pragmatically, whatever receives funding. While I recognize the benefits of maintaining focus on a single topic, such as deep knowledge, networking, or even reputation, I seem to gravitate toward new subjects periodically.

I wonder if others share this experience. How common is it for people to stick to the same topic for an extended period in academic and professional settings? Should I aim at this?

[mossy]

How are PhDs by prior publication viewed?

I am curious, especially from search committee members, as to how they would view a PhD in Philosophy obtained through prior publications (from the UK or Australia as only these places seem to do this), especially for someone who already holds a PhD in a related discipline. All other things being equal, would a PhD by prior publication simply be viewed the same as a PhD from an unranked department?

[associate prof]

This site has been very helpful for graduate students and junior faculty. And it's been around long enough that many of us are now tenured.

What are good resources for that middle career range? There are more and different administrative expectations, more and different politics to navigate, and fewer questions about CVs, job applications, and how to get publications. There are also questions about research trajectories, how to mentor junior faculty, how to think about career trajectories, when and whether to pursue promotion to full, etc.

These aren't great questions for this blog unless its scope is expanded. Maybe it's time to do so? (Or have an occasional series on these questions? I imagine early-career folks might appreciate some insight into what's coming, as long as it doesn't overtake the entire blog.)

[Martin]

How convenient or inconvenient is it to have publications completely outside of one's area of specialization, for a grad student aiming at an academic job?

[Nick]

I've got two questions:

1) Do you have any general rules of thumb that guide prepping a syllabus for a new course? Suppose, for example, you are teaching X in the Fall, and you have no familiarity at all with X. Do you find someone who has published a lot on X and look for their teaching syllabus on X? Do you look for a widely cited textbook/anthology on X and? And so on.

2) Is it imprudent to contact schools you think you'd be a good fit for and ask if they anticipate hiring anyone in the next academic year? I want to do this for two reasons: a) I'm just really curious, and b) in the event they are, I don't want to i) risk missing their posting, and ii) I want to have time to cater a good job application that fits them well.

[Grad student]

What has happened to essay prizes (particularly ones for grad students)? Many seem to have stopped. Does anyone know why? Does anyone think this is a good/bad thing?

[Noah]

Can we get a thread that provides information to those interested in contributing to one of the Oxford Studies journals? The information seems to be not centrally collected anywhere, hard to find, possibly outdated in some cases, and varies between the various journals. Some of the journals accept submissions by email year-round, others publish at least some of their papers from conferences, others publish some from Marc Sanders prize contest submissions, and still others sometimes put out CFPs. Here's what I've got so far from searching:

OS Agency & Responsibility - conference papers [New Orleans Workshop on Agency & Responsibility]
OS Ancient Phil - email submissions [[email protected]]
OS Early Modern Phil - email submissions [[email protected]]; Sanders Prize
OS Epistemology - Sanders Prize
OS Medieval Phil - email submissions [[email protected]]
OS Metaethics - conference papers [Madison Metaethics Workshop]; Sanders Prize
OS Metaphysics - Sanders Prize
OS Phil Mind - has put a CFP on PhilEvents at least once
OS Phil Religion - Sanders Prize
OS Political Phil - conference papers [Workshop for Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (but conference is at least sometimes invite only)]; Sanders Prize

I welcome anyone in the know to correct anything above or add missing avenues.

[Curious PhD]

Does it ever make sense to re-submit to the same journal after desk-rejection?

For context: I recently submitted an article to a leading generalist journal. The article was desk-rejected for reasons of framing -- specifically, they said that my paper is framed too narrowly for a generalist audience. The paper as a whole should appeal to a broader audience than my narrow subfield. (In fact, some friends from other fields want to use my argument in their own research.) But I can see how the abstract (and maybe some of the early language) makes the paper seem too specialist for a generalist journal. Is desk-rejection usually final, even if I change the framing? The journal's editors are switching soon. Would it make a difference if I submit to a different editorial team?

[Liz]

Dealing with students who lie, and self-absorbed colleagues.

This semester my freshmen philosophy class was the worst I’ve ever had in almost a decade. The main reason for this was the conduct of several students, who enrolled in groups (to be together in class as friends), and spent most of their time in class laughing at me, sneering, hardly interacting with other students and me. Several of them asked for extensions providing very unrealistic excuses, which however I accepted in the majority of cases. I did my best to teach in that class, to be patient and flexible so that they would interrupt the laughing and pay attention. I never singled out any of them in front of the class, and most of the time I even pretended not to notice. I talked in private to one of them to encourage him to do better in class (since he would never do the reading for the day). Now on the teaching evaluations they said that I picked on some students, that I did cold calling, and that I was passive aggressive. Aside from the discomfort of reading these harsh comments when I was being so patient even when their behavior was hurting me, how do people deal with students who clearly fail to respect you in class, and then claim you were the one who didn’t respect them? Also, how do you deal with colleagues who can only speak to you of how impressive they are as teachers, how they transfix students with their teaching, when you experience bullying in the classroom? Full disclosure: this is not the post of someone playing the victim card to avoid dealing with her responsibility as a teacher. I know that I could do better but in that class students never gave me even a chance to be taken seriously. However I tried, including talking to them privately or encouraging them to see me in office hours, or by offering group activities, their attitude to me stayed the same.

[Early Career Inquirer]

I have questions about miscellaneous things for a CV.

Should conference panel moderating go on a CV and, if so, where?

Should academic journals or articles which are reviewed by the editorial board, but not external blind reviewers, go under the same heading or a different one from blind-peer review articles?

Is it still normative to include personal contact details on a CV in addition to institutional contact information?

Thank you!

[AlsoECI]

I also have a question about CVs. Should we separate publications out by type (journal article vs book chapter) or by whether they were blind reviewed vs invited? Some folks use the peer-reviewed vs invited distinction but many invited pieces are also peer-reviewed (i.e. go through rounds of revisions and have the chance of being rejected) so I don't find that a helpful distinction...

[I wish I knew]

I've seen many "What I wish I knew when I started grad school" threads. How about a thread entitled: "What I wish I knew when I started at my first TT job?"

[Hermias]

Has anyone ever got "in trouble" for freely posting pdfs of their papers on academia, philpapers, etc.?

I guess that there's often some legal contract that I didn't bother reading. I always put all my papers up, since I want as many people to read them as want to read them, and since my guess is that there's zero chance of someone "coming after me," whatever that would look like in this context.

[whatever]

How do you start a new academic journal?

Who (think: career stage) should start a new academic journal?

Should you even bother...?

[Jan]

I had a paper I was planning to submit to Philosophy & Public Affairs in the next month—until the recent news came out. It seems like the perfect venue. Should I wait until September or submit it somewhere else-and if so, does anyone have a recommendation for which top generalist journals are most amenable to analytic moral and political philosophy?

[Christian Phil.]

How are Christian philosophy journals received by the broader community? As examples, The Heythrop Journal, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Faith and Philosophy, Philosophia Christi, Angelicum, Gregoriaum, Res Philosophica, Review of Metaphysics, Review of Politics, etc.?

[publishing]

I am working on a manuscript (to be submitted for publication eventually) where another author's paper is relevant. However, this latter paper is listed as "provisionally forthcoming" on the author's webpage. Is it okay to discuss and engage with this paper in my manuscript? The pdf that is posted on the authors' webpage doesn't say anything like "please do not cite" or "please cite the published version", it just says that it's provisionally forthcoming.

[apa-newbie]

Is it appropriate to submit a (slightly) longer version of paper that has been accepted to present at an upcoming APA to a journal for publication?

[sahpa]

I suppose I have a meta question. On the one hand, the Cocoon is an inclusive and supportive space. On the other hand, much of what goes on here is job market advice. However, the job market is inherently competitive, and so it seems to me that virtually none of the advice can truly scale: if everyone does x, then doing x doesn't give you the edge anymore. So the advice is only good if only some (not all) job marketeers follow it -- but then is this forum really meant to be inclusive of and supportive of *all* job marketeers? Isn't that something of a pragmatic contradiction?

I am putting the question in a rather, well, tendentious manner. But I mean to only be pressing the point in its most serious form, like we do in philosophy. And let me emphasize that I do not doubt the goodwill or intentions of Marcus and everybody else (including myself!) who contributes to discussions here. I suppose what I am really after is hearing how other people think about the advice they're offering in this environment.

[citation norms]

Is it permissible to cite a talk you went to at a conference, even if, as far as you know, no paper version of that talk exists? How about a paper from a preread workshop? Does it matter the career stage - are the norms different if you're citing a grad student vs. someone very famous? Does it matter if you're citing in agreement or objecting to the view? Assume you're writing with the intent of submitting to journals.

[Early Career Grad Student]

I have occasionally come across graduate students and/or other early-careers list their "managing editor" experiences, at various journals, sometimes during summers, on their CV. These strike me as potentially quite valuable opportunities -- getting to know how journals run, how reviewer comments are conveyed and responded to, the acceptance, R&R, and rejection rate, etc. (This isn't the position of regular, in-house managing editor like that at Ethics, I assume; maybe it's more "volunteer-ish" in nature -- I'm not sure.)

I haven't seen any reputable journals calling for applications/volunteers, however, for this capacity. Do they just go by invitation, or is this information available somewhere else?

Thank you very much.

[Associate Editor]

Early Career Grad Student - at my institutions, at least one of the journals we run is ME'ed by local grad students; it's a paid role, and AFAIK, it's open by application, but only to our own graduate students. Other journals we run have MEs that are students from elsewhere in the university, those may be advertised jobs too. I suspect there's some bureaucratic reason to stick to 'internal' hires here, it's often easier to fill part-time roles internally, with students, rather than doing an outside search. I don't know if things work the same way elsewhere.

[Long-Winded]

I'm trying to publish a paper of about 12,000 words. For reasons I won't go into, I'm not willing to shorten it (any further than I've already shortened it). Does anyone know which of the top generalist journals are most likely to publish a paper this long?

[Mahmoud Jalloh]

Long-Winded, see: https://www.pjip.org/

This should probably be linked to in the sidebar.

[M]

I am a tenured, mid-career professor in Europe. I've been asked to write a tenure letter for someone at a teaching institution in the US. I only know the person's research (and I am not familiar with tenure letters, or with teaching institutions). I'm looking for tips about what they expect in a strong letter.

[Cookie Cutter]

At least once a week, I have an idea that I think could be developed into a publishable paper. But ninety-five percent of the time, the relevant idea has been published already, usually within the last four years. Is this a common experience? Am I doomed to accidentally reproduce others' work on an almost daily basis for the rest of my academic career? Do any of you have advice for generating original philosophical ideas, or for how to quell the ever-present fear that absolutely everything worth saying about philosophy has already been said (or is about to be said, this month, by someone from NYU)?

[hopeful]

Can there be overlap between a writing sample and a job talk? I have a paper that I want to use as a writing sample in the next cycle. I’m also working on a separate paper that applies the theory worked out in the writing sample to a specific problem, which I think is fruitfully addressed with the resources I’ve developed. Since the application paper relies on the ideas worked out in the writing sample, there will be some overlap in content.

Would it be a mistake to use the application paper as a job talk when I’ve used the general paper as my writing sample?

Of course, I would find different ways to present the ideas (different examples, perhaps different order of presentation), but one section of the talk would clearly be a compressed rehearsal of the conclusions of my writing sample. I’m unsure whether to present work that is new and what I’m currently thinking about or something older but very different to my current project (if I get the chance to give a job talk at all!).

[a reader]

When I applied for jobs when finishing my PhD, I used my institutional email address and institutional letterhead in my job applications.

Now that I am in a TT position, I am not sure what email address to use (personal or institutional), nor whether to use my institutional letterhead, in my job applications.

What is the general etiquette for application materials when applying out of a professional appointment rather than a PhD program?

Apologies if this has already been answered and I've overlooked it. I can only seem to find a couple of posts addressing this, but from ~10 years ago.

[nick]

I've had a paper with a journal that has not been able to secure external reviewers for almost four months now.

I know everyone has different tolerances for review times given their career stage, but I'm wondering if there is a general time threshold at which most people should just rescind the paper. I'm also worried this means this journal will simply never find such external reviewers.

[How general is general?]

As a graduate student working on the History of Africana Philosophy, where do you think would be good venues for me to try to publish my materials in. My sense is that I am past the implicit threshold of 'generalist' and yet must consider trying to publish as 'respectably' as possible for the job market. Any suggestions?

[Henry Lara]

Can we talk about grant money?

In the US, graduate students in the humanities and philosophy in particular are not well prepared or trained in writing grants. Of course, because there is no labs or equipment to buy, research in the humanities tends to be a lot cheaper than in STEM. But it seems to be an under utilized resource, particularly given that GRA / GTA and other lines of grad student support are drying up and thus faculty with grants can step in to help. Finally, it is much more common in Europe to apply for grants, even if the humanities.

[4 months? 5? 6?]

How many months should one wait before sending a very polite email to a journal inquiring about a manuscript's status? I realize this has probably been asked on here many times, but I've also noticed that crowd opinions on this seem to have shifted in the last 1-2 years in the wake of ever-increasing journal review times.

[communication with reviewers post acceptance?]

Is it okay to reach out to an author whose paper you refereed after it has been published? I would only do so to compliment the author and/or continue a conversation that the paper/comments may have initiated. It might also be a good way to make a professional connection? What are the norms here, if any? On the flip side, is there a way to contact those who reviewed your own work after it has been published? Again, I would only do so in a friendly manner (to continue a conversation, to thank them for good comments, etc.)

[Aspiring philosopher]

Hello Cocoon readers, and apologies in advance for a long(ish) post. I am an incoming PhD in History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) student at Cambridge HPS this Fall 2024, having won an AHRC and Cambridge Trust funding that cover both tuition and stipend for the duration of the program. I am from the Global South, and I am entering PhD as a mature student (early 30s), having worked as a College Philosophy teacher in my country (having a master’s is the minimum requirement to teach here). I am currently facing a difficult decision, and would appreciate everyone’s advice (esp. those based in the UK and continental EU).

I am currently deliberating whether to separate from my current home institution or not.

The thing is that, it is a life goal for me to work as an academic philosopher in the UK or EU (US too), as they provide a more welcoming and supportive environment for philosophizing (in comparison to my locale, that is). So, this PhD scholarship from Cambridge is a welcome development, as (it seems to me at least) this opens doors to opportunities to work in the UK or EU (perhaps even the US) afterwards. Thus, the option of leaving my current home institution (the reason why it seems like I need to be will be apparent below).

This is just a life goal, of course, and I am aware that this can be frustrated by the sorry state of the philosophy job market around the world. That’s why I am finding it hard to just give-up the security/stability of being essentially remaining an employee of my current home institution (I will just be considered on study leave). They are willing to provide additional funding for my PhD, on top of still giving me my salary, but in exchange of returning to the country afterwards. I will essentially be signing a return service contract (where 1 year leave is to 2 years return service), which means that, IF and when opportunities do arise after my time in Cambridge, I cannot just grab them and go.

So basically the difficulty for me is that: I am not sure about the prospects of a job (i.e., postdocs/fellowships/lectureships) abroad after my PhD, and so it seems like taking the plunge and separating from my institution is risky and comes with great opportunity cost. Of course, I recognize that there will always be risk and opportunity cost in every decision path, but I do not know whether they are worth taking in this particular case. On the other hand, IF opportunities do eventually come, having a contract with my home institution would be a hindrance. But this is a big ‘IF’. I might just be wildly optimistic or overestimating my own abilities (if it is relevant, I already have one publication in a Leiter top 10-15 generalist journal and foreseeing another one in another top 5-10 generalist journal).

I am not sure if I am framing my quandary appropriately (any decision theorist here?), but I would appreciate any advice/insight from everyone—from grad students, early career scholars, and seasoned academics alike.

Thank you in advance!

[Slow Editor]

Does anyone have advice for how to get papers from 80% finished to 100%? I often find that I have a good idea and write a decent first draft. But I then spend easily double the time polishing, usually still not to satisfaction. Often, I find I have lots of extra things to say, and I never know whether it's appropriate to include them or not, so I dither about that. Does anyone have good strategies foreign more efficient? Thanks in advance.

[out of curiosity]

Well not just out of curiosity, but maybe I need to try to understand my fellow reviewers/academics a bit more. So here I am asking, given that one has accepted the task, why would it take anyone more than two weeks to review a paper? What are your reasons/guesses?

[Work and life]

out of curiosity: my own work that takes precedence given that I'm paid for it, and personal things (like family etc)

[TerrifiedJunior]

I have a somewhat minor question, but I think it could be useful for others. How common/useful/recommended is it to suggest specific reviewers when submitting a paper to a journal?

I've come to learn that it is quite common in other fields. Researchers tend to suggest reviewers they think will be congenial to the paper's argument. And, not always but to a greater degree than I would have expected, these reviewers are actually assigned by the editors.

I've never done that in philosophy, fearing that it would be seen poorly by the editors or that the suggested reviewers may guess that I'm the author (unlikely, given my career stage). But none of these considerations seem to weigh heavily in other fields.

[anon]

Are there any significant drawbacks to having multiple publications in the same journal?

Having two papers in two different journals could look less impressive than having two in the same journal. But as long as the journals are relatively on par with one another, is it that big of a deal?

I ask because I've got a paper forthcoming in a well-run journal and another paper I know would be a good fit with it. It's tough to find well-run journals these days, and it's even harder to find a well-run journal that would also be a good fit for a polished draft.

Thoughts?

[Philscier]

Does anyone have a sense of which generalist journals regularly publish (so to speak) "pure" philosophy of science papers? And why don't more journals do this?

Lots of generalist journals publish stuff that overlaps with philosophy of science, say metaphysics of science or formal epistemology. It's not hard to find somewhere to submit a paper on laws of nature or the metaphysics of QM, or on Sleeping Beauty or whatever.

But it's hard to submit something on the epistemology of measurement or on the epistemology of randomized controlled trials to places outside of the main philosophy of science speciality journals. Synthese and (sometimes) Erkenntnis do this but they have a long tradition of being phil science friendly. Nous and JPhil also seem to do this, but it's hard to get a sense of the rest of where the rest of the top-20 generalist journals stand.

I mean, I once had an entirely non-formal paper from a HPS angle rejected from a regular journal for "being too formal," which journal also regularly publishes highly technical formal epistemology papers. So, what gives? And are there generalist journals which are willing to accept papers on topics in the philosophy of science that don't overlap so clearly w/ formal epistemology and metaphysics?

[USA to Abroad]

I got a multiple-yr postdoc in Europe, PhD from the US. It's primarily research based with opportunities to teach once or twice. Since I know relatively little about European postdoctoral positions, can people chime in about their first- or second-hand experiences with European postdoc duties and expectations? I'm interested in the following questions:

(1) Are European postdocs expected to stay in the region outside the regular semesters? For example, during the PhD, I could go wherever I wanted during the summer and do my thing. This is probably normal with VAPs/tt positions. Will I be fine if I want to return to the US during a portion of the summer, for instance, when activity is low and focus on research there? How can I best approach that possibility?

(2) This is my first time as a postdoc, let alone abroad. For the PIs in the audience with postdocs, what're some things postdocs have done that contributed uniquely to the project and to your excellent recommendation of them to colleagues or in letters?

(3) Anything else you might want to add about european research postdocs? I've heard anecdotally about the european postdoc "trap" though I have my concerns about that terminology. What to really avoid?

[Allie Jean]

What makes an article "original" to the extent that it's not in print at another journal?

Recently, I presented a short paper (~2600 words) at a conference. I won an award for the paper and the conference would like to to publish it in their small journal. But I am working on a much longer and more thoroughly argued version of the paper, which offers more concrete examples, and ties my proposal in with other relevant theories and concepts. I believe when more thoroughly worked out, the paper could be accepted in a relatively good journal. Would publishing the early, nascent version of the paper preclude my ability to publish a more in-depth version at a later date?