In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
I have a question about preempting objections in journal-length papers. It seems to me that, given the constraints of length, you can’t always argue for every premise that supports your central thesis in detail. Sometimes, you have to take certain premises for granted or only offer a brief justification for why you endorse them, in order to keep the paper concise. However, since most philosophical theses are controversial to some extent, it’s not uncommon for me to receive referee reports that say something like, "The argument relies on Thesis A, but there are obvious objections to Thesis A that should be addressed."
In response, I’ve tried preemptively addressing possible objections at the start of my papers, but then I often get feedback like, "The introduction is too long and makes the paper feel unfocused."
It seems that the root of the issue is that some referees agree with the basic premise of my paper, while others do not. So, I’m wondering: when, and to what extent, should I preemptively address possible objections to my paper’s central premise? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
Good query. I haven't had this experience too often, but basically like the OP I sometimes find out in the peer-review process which objections probably need to be preempted, and I usually try to address those. Another thing to possibly do is to simply cite others who have defended Thesis A in the past, if this has been done, and then frame the argument as a big conditional, "If A, B, C, etc., then D" (which is sort of what they are anyway). A third thing I've learned to do is to not preempt objections in the paper's introduction, but instead later in the main body of the paper.
Do other readers have any other helpful tips?
I think that any substantive justificatory work belongs in the body, not the introduction. If your premise is controversial, then it needs some defense, and that means a section of its own. Unless it's basically a reply paper, in which case I think there's more leeway to build up from someone else's work.
But there's a limit to how much you can justify your controversial premise without writing an entire paper on the subject. And in my experience, referees are not always very reasonable on that front.
Posted by: Michel | 02/03/2025 at 01:48 PM
Write papers for those vaguely sympathetic to your assumptions. You’ll never convince those who aren’t, and editing your paper with them in mind will only alienate the reviewers who are predisposed towards accepting.
Posted by: Don’t try | 02/03/2025 at 04:39 PM
How about saying something like this: My argument depends upon premise X which I admit is controversial. However for reasons of space I will have to defer its defence to another day. For now, I ask those who disagree with X to read my paper as an exercise in if-thenist philosophy. What I am claiming is a) that if X, then my conclusion follows and b) that thesis X, even if false, is non-crazy – something that I hope that my opponents will concede.
That should conciliate all but the most rabid foes to thesis X. Furthermore, it will force any referees who subscribe to not-X to ask themselves whether not-X is so very obvious that a paper that assumes X is obviously unacceptable, which if X is non-crazy, they probably will.
Posted by: Charles Pigden | 02/03/2025 at 06:47 PM
Correction Furthermore, it will force any referees who subscribe to not-X to ask themselves whether not-X is so very obvious that a paper that assumes X is completely unacceptable, which if X is non-crazy, they will probably have to concede that it is not..
Posted by: Charles Pigden | 02/03/2025 at 09:16 PM
@Charles Pidgen...........I think you have a very optimistic opinion of the typical referee!
Posted by: optimistic | 02/03/2025 at 09:33 PM
There is no single perfect solution. Every option will leave some reviewers satisfied and other reviewers unsatisfied. Write the paper you think is best (e.g. preemptively address those objections you wish to preemptively address) and then keep sending the paper out until you get lucky enough to be reviewed by people who share your sentiments.
Posted by: Daniel Weltman | 02/04/2025 at 12:31 AM
More than once I found myself taking a step back and writing a whole paper to explore and motivate a premise so I can come back and refer to it in a footnote in my original paper
Posted by: Side pubs | 02/04/2025 at 03:50 AM
Doesn't work for everyone, but you might pitch the paper as building upon a world view that many accept, like sort of millions if not billions. You may further add something like "it's impossible to defend a whole world view in a single paper, but spelling out the implications would help us come back to better understand and evaluate the plausibility of the larger package" or "drawing upon this particular world view may shed insight or show a different perspective on an issue."
If you can, it would even be better to argue that there are some implications that even those who don't accept the world view may take seriously.
Of course this would be in the conditional claim camp, and you should not write as if the conclusion is unconditional.
Posted by: academic migrant | 02/04/2025 at 04:27 AM
I endorse Charles Pigden's strategy. It seems to me to be the standard one: "You have to assume some premises to get the ball rolling--these are mine, and if you don't like them, then consider me to be exploring the consequences of accepting those premises." This has worked for me on several occasions.
Posted by: Circe | 02/05/2025 at 11:54 AM
Related option: indicate early on that there are serious objections you must deal with, and that you will respond to them later. Then respond and say, of course, I lack scope to respond fully in a single paper.
Posted by: Writer | 02/08/2025 at 03:05 PM