Grappling with cross-disciplinary journals not understanding philosophical style?

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

How do you handle editors and reviewers from cross-disciplinary journals not understanding philosophical style and research (and rejecting a paper because it's more of an "opinion piece" rather than what their discipline deems "research" or because they consider the use of first-person pronouns "informal")? This is a pattern I've noticed especially among reviewers with a computer science background, but I'm sure it's not limited to them.

I've never run into this problem, but I guess my hot-take is that I'd simply try to learn and adhere to their conventions as much as is feasible. But if reviewers at a journal aren't willing to consider philosophical arguments (deeming them "opinion pieces"), then maybe the journal just isn't a good fit for the piece.

Do other readers, perhaps ones with more experience on this, have any helpful tips to share?

Comments

[Assistant Professor]

A few thoughts as a philosopher who publishes in non-philosophy-specific journals:
1. Consider the fit of the submission to the journal. Does it align with the mission of the journal (read the "about" page of the journal) or other kinds of work you've read in that journal? If so, great! Say as much in a cover letter to help clarify why you see your work connecting to the work/mission of the journal. If not, then probably send it elsewhere.
2. Consider suggesting reviewers. I know this came up on this blog recently and is not necessarily a norm for philosophers, but it is in other fields. You might direct the editors to the kinds of reviewers you think would be a good fit (especially useful if they are people that have published in that journal before).
3. If you get push back from peer reviewers about your work (i.e., that it is an opinion rather than an argument, or is a reflection, not research) but are offered an R&R, consider asking the editors for advice about how to navigate the reviewer comments. Presumably the editors offered the R&R because they don't agree with the reviewers, but you might check. Also, referring back to the mission/aims of the journal in your response and how your piece fits with those is likely more successful than doubling down and saying something like "this is how philosophy works" (implying the reviewer just doesn't get it, when in fact their norms are simply different).

[A philosopher who works at the intersection of philosophy and science]

I agree with Assistant Professor's suggests. I'll add:

1. Check if the journal has different article types, e.g., "Review and Perspective" vs. "Research" vs. w/e. Philosophy papers sometimes fit better at interdisciplinary journals as "Perspective" pieces or something of that sort.

2. Instead of "I" you could try "We." I've had scientific reviewers who are more receptive to the latter. The obsession with false objectivity in the sciences (let's pretend the research was conducted by no one in particular, and written by no one in particular, when we know that's not the case!) can be frustrating at times.

[outsider]

I am a philosopher, but I publish in two fields outside of philosophy, one is rather qualitative in orientation, and the other is strictly quantitative. From my experience, the onus is really on you, the author, to speak to them in their language. Here is what I found helps - employ the basic structure of papers in the field. In the quantiative fields I work in, my paper have a method section, a data section, a results section, and then a discussion. It looks like I know the norms of the discipline (I guess I do?!). Also, do a brief literature review in the field - show you know what has been done (and note what hasn't been done). I find it is quite straightforward to publish in this quantitive field, even in very good journals. The qualitiative field is somewhat unpredictable. But the same basic principles apply.