Which generalist journals publish 'pure' philosophy of science?

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

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?

I have no idea. Do any readers have any helpful insights?

Comments

[S]

This is not a very prestigious journal but it may be worth considering: Global Philosophy (https://link.springer.com/journal/10516/articles), previously known as Axiomathes.

[anecdotal anon]

I think this is purely anecdote on my part, but as someone working in philsci I basically never am looking at the 'generalist' 'non-philsci' journals (I can't even tell you if I've read something in, say, philosophical review/studies in the past half dozen years). So, on one hand, no clue in regards to the question here. But, on the other, I'm not sure I understand why someone would have a philsci paper and not be submitting it to the philsci journals, given the desire to publish (and, I imagine, be read by relevantly interested people)?

[Andrew]

I think you're just confused about what a generalist journal is.

It is precisely a journal that publishes things have some overlap with topics outside of people's specializations. The precise definition is going to vary per journal but it's basically an overton window of what the people running the journal think are topics accessible to philosophers in general.

[irritated philosopher of science who is apparently not one]

sorry, why is the metaphysics of quantum mechanics not "pure" philosophy of science? What does that even mean? Just because people who are obsessed with a certain way of doing philosophy of science have captured things like the PSA and some of the specialist journals (e.g. more so Philosophy of Science than BJPS) doesn't somehow automatically make the kind of philosophy of science work that is now being published in generalist journals not "count" as pure philosophy of science. (The metaphysics of quantum mechanics is not "adjacent" to philosophy of science. It IS philosophy of science, and it's not up to the person asking this question to determine the boundaries of these things.)

[Brad]

There are a number of general philosophy journals that publish (influential) articles in the philosophy of science, including: Journal of Philosophy, Synthese, Erkenntnis, Nous, Philosophical Quarterly, Dialectica, Philosophical Studies, Philosophical Review, Mind, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, and Analysis.

see here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-010-9214-6

[Anon]

"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?"

Perhaps my impression is wrong, but it would be quicker to give a list of generalist journals that do *not* accept papers in 'pure' philosophy of science. I get that OP might have had a bad experience (and I'm sorry for that), but looking at some back issues of any generalist journal and you'll find something that counts as 'pure' philosophy of science (perhaps not lots of such papers, but many of the 'top' generalist journals publish so little that there is not 'lots' on any topic/area)