The Philosophers' Cocoon

How (much) to read (and take notes)?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'inexperienced scholar' writes:

Standard advice for paper writing is not to let reading keep you from writing. However, I often choose to write about topics that involve extensive research, partly because I don't have any time constraints on my writing and I write out of a love of the craft. Right now, I have my outline and some of the paper written, but being still new to the process, I wonder how much reading is too much and how much is too little. Do professional philosophers take extensive notes on the literature they read? I tend to engage with lesser known scholars in the field as well as the big names, but I must admit that I have a compulsion to memorize and extensively document what I read, some of it primary lit and much of it secondary. Any advice as to how to manage reading in a way that is conducive to proper research, while not drowning oneself in papers?

This is a good query, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Allow me to share a few brief thoughts before opening things up for comments.

How do you decide what to read?

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

I'm a second-year PhD student, and I often struggle with deciding on what to read at all, how to prioritize the reading assingments I give myself, and how thoroghly I should read a text. As my time and my ability to focus are limited resources, I often find myself doubting whether a paper or a book I began to read is really worth the time, and whether I should rather read something else instead. These doubts occur quite frequently, and I begin to jump back and forth between papers and rarely finish one. Maybe one could describe this as a kind of fear of missing out on the most important readings. I would like to know how other people approach these problems.

This is a good query. In my experience, one of the traps that graduate students can run into is reading too much. Of course, it's important to read, so that you have a good grasp of the literature. But when I was in graduate school, I knew fellow grads who spent most of their time reading and little to no time writing--and it very much stifled their progress through the program and in publishing. So, it really is crucial to find the right balance. But what is the right balance, and what are some practical tips for finding it? I'm curious to hear what readers think. Obviously, I'm not a grad student, so my own approach may not generalize to the OP's situation. But here, very roughly, is how I go about things...

Graduate certificates and the job market?

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

A number of PhD programmes offer various graduate certificates (many of which involve taking additional modules in other disciplines). I'm wondering, how significant are such certificates for the job market? How do admissions committees view such certificates?

I'm not familiar with these kinds of certificates, so I'm not entirely sure how to answer. Can any readers fill us in on the kinds of certificates that are offered? Bearing my ignorance here in mind, I guess my initial reaction is that I don't think certificates per se are likely to play a significant role for most jobs, as most hiring committees seem likely to be more concerned with your overall accomplishments as a researcher and teacher, rather than a certificate. But I can imagine possible exceptions. One case here might be a job in 'clinical ethics' (i.e. ethics consulting in health care), where a certificate in the area might help, particularly it involved experience in clinical contexts. Another case might be artificial intelligence, as jobs in this area are often interdisciplinary and interdisciplinary hiring committees may very well be concerned with the kind of breadth of background understanding that a certificate might involve. In any case, if certificates are helpful, my sense is that it is probably not the piece of paper that matters so much (in most cases) as the extra education the certificate involves.

But again, these reactions are admittedly grounded in real ignorance on my part of what kinds of graduate certificates are offered and how they might be relevant to jobs. So, do any of you with more experience in these matters have any helpful tips or insights to share?

Handling troubles with dissertation supervisors?

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

I am about to go on the job market, and I did not enjoy working with my supervisor. I am therefore determined to avoid having to interact with them or rely on them for the next steps in my career, however I worry that such independence from one's supervisor, if one lacks a strong academic network beyond that of the supervisor, is impossible. I also worry that maybe some of my misgivings aren't about this person and their team in particular, but about certain power structures in academia altogether, and so perhaps I should just pursue a non-academic career. It would be great to hear from people who might have thoughts on any of this!

I suspect that troubles with dissertation supervisors or other dissertation committee members are not uncommon. So it might be good to hear from readers who have been through similar situations on how they handled it. It would also, of course, be good to hear tips from readers more generally. Although I admittedly haven't been through the kind of situation that the OP describes, here are a few quick reactions.

Handling mistakes in published work?

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

How often do you all notice small mistakes in your published work? I have recently noticed one or two mistakes that rise above the level of a typo, but don't really ruin the rest of my article. As an example, I mistranslated a word and emphasized the word that was mistranslated. Another example in another article: I mistakenly characterized a potential identity between concepts in a footnote ("Most people think X, DESCRIPTOR Y, is the same thing as Z, DESCRIPTOR W." W and Y should be switched.) Ultimately, neither matters for the broader argument of the articles, but it just makes me feel like an amateur. It's especially annoying because I feel like if I had just put a little more care and attention into my work, I could have avoided this.

Any advice for dealing with such issues? Should I just accept that this is going to happen?

Good questions! I take it that most of us have published things with minor mistakes (not to mention some non-minor ones). It doesn't help much, I think, that publishers often give authors something like 48 hours to proof articles (and in some cases, entire books). I'll never forget that this once happened to me over Thanksgiving holiday here in the US. I was on holiday with family, and my publisher emailed me in the middle of the holiday to let me know that my proofs must be completed within a couple of days. Needless to say, I wasn't very happy--and what do you know: the final published manuscript ended up having several significant editing errors. Anyway, mistakes happen. The question is how to best handle them. One reader submitted the following reply:

External dissertation committee members?

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

PhD student here. What are reasons for and against having a dissertation committee member who is not part of your department? How do you go about inviting a professor from another department to be on your committee? Should you be working with them first/already, or at least be acquainted with them? What are the odds of their acceptance if you ask them? Are there any drawbacks to asking?

These are great questions. I imagine there are two different types of dissertation committee members who are not a part of your graduate department: committee members from other universities and committee members from a different discipline at your own university (e.g. psychology, political science, etc.). In both cases, I imagine there are two main reasons to want an external committee member like this: (1) to draw on their expertise, and (2) get another recommendation letter for the job-market. I'm not entirely sure what reasons there are against having external committee members, though, nor am I at all sure what the process looks like for seeking one out. Do any readers with experience in these matters have any tips to share?

How can we help you? (June 2021)

Now that it's been a month 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.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

Now that it's been a month 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.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

Resubmitting a paper to the same journal?

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

Hello! I have a situation that I would like some advice. I submitted a paper to a special issue called for by a journal. The paper was rejected by the editor. However, the two reviews seem to both recommend a "revise and resubmit". I understand that the editor made the decision due to the fact that there is time pressure for the special issue. My question is, once I have the revised version ready, can I send it to the same journal (but obviously not for the special issue)? If so, should I make a note explaining all these, hoping that the editors reach out to the same two reviewers? Or should I just submit it somewhere else? Thank you!

These are good questions, and I have to confess that I've been in a similar situation. Anyone have any insight? Is it okay to resubmit a paper to the same journal as a 'normal submission' after it has been rejected for a special issue? Also, this brings to mind a more general question that I have seen raised from time to time: will journals ever consider a newer version of a paper they previously rejected, if for example enough time has passed (say, a few years) and the paper has been 'completely rewritten', substantially changing and improving its main argument? I've heard this question raised a few times by a few different people, but can't recall what the answer is!

Good grants for junior philosophers?

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

I've recently moved to the UK for a postdoc. They have lots of grants here, and I gather that it's a good idea for me to start building a track record of getting them (is that right?). If so: what sorts of things do younger folks usually do with a grant, and what sorts of grants are we competitive for?

This is a great question! I suspect quite a few readers, both in the UK and elsewhere, might benefit from hearing some answers. Do any of you with grant experience have any tips or other advice?

Types of referee reports?

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

Maybe we could have a thread on 'types of referee reports'. I am working on a particularly frustrating R&R right now, and could use the entertainment. It maybe could also be instructive (?) on what not to do when writing a referee report?

Here, I'll start:

“You have not cited my book. No one else will tell you to cite my book, but I wrote it, someone published it, it’s on a glancingly related topic, so this lack of engagement with my work is a severe deficiency of your paper. Reject.”

“You have cited my book, but apparently you disagree with me. This means that you have not read my book carefully enough. Read it again. Reject.”

“You have talked about how X is related to Y, but have you considered that perhaps Z is related to Y? I do not know if it is, but neither do you, apparently, since you do not write about it, so … reject.”

“You are here writing about X. But have you considered mildly related issues Y and Z? Apparently you are ignorant of them. I would not consider publishing any paper on X that does not address Y and Z. Revise and resubmit […] This paper is too disjointed. What you write about Y and Z is nuanced and insightful, I am not sure why you discuss Y and Z in a paper on X. Reject.”

“I am just not convinced by this. Reject.”

“This is a great paper, unfortunately it’s on a topic I’m not super interested in. Have you considered rewriting the paper on a different topic, that is more related to my specific areas of interest and expertise? Thanks in advance. Revise and resubmit.”

This could be a rather fun and potentially illuminating exercise to end the week with, as it might help us all to reflect a bit on how we and others around us approach the practice of peer-review. I'll probably share an example or two in the comments section below, but I think I'd just like to open things up for comments first!

What to do with rejected 'reply' papers?

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

I'll begin with some context: Recently I submitted a paper to a journal. This paper was a response to another paper published in that journal; the paper being responded to, in turn, was itself a response to an earlier paper of mine (also published in that same journal). Earlier today, unfortunately, I received an email from the editor letting me know that my new paper had been rejected. In explanation, the editor left the following comment: "I can't publish this, because it cites our own articles too much. Hopefully, another venue might be interested."

I now have a few questions:

(1) What might be the prospects for publishing the paper elsewhere? If I remember correctly, I've heard that most journals won't be willing to consider publishing a response to a paper that was not itself published in their own journal. If that's right, then there'd appear to be little hope of publishing the paper elsewhere. But I was wondering if anyone had any relevant thoughts or experiences here.

(2) To the extent that publishing the paper elsewhere does appear hopeless, what's left? Perhaps simply putting a copy of the paper on my PhilPeople profile? Though it'd of course be disappointing not to have the paper published in an actual journal, this is a paper that means a great deal to me personally, and I suppose I'd rather have it be available in some form than not at all. Has anyone else here had experiences of being deeply invested in a paper, yet not being able to find a publisher for it? If so, what "last resort" options have you found?

These are excellent questions. My general sense is that, with respect to (1), the best general path forward may be to try to convert the reply piece into something more like a standalone journal article. I've done this with several pieces, and sometimes it has worked, sometimes not. The other obvious path forward is to look for other places to publish it, such as other journals that accept replies to articles in other journals, or in an edited volume (which has worked for me before). But I can never remember which journals accept replies to articles in other journals, so if readers want to suggest such journals in the comments section below, by all means, please do!

What haven't you read, and why?

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

Lots of my philosophriends report that they're embarrassed about having not read X. Sometimes X is something that philosophers generally are supposed to have read. Sometimes it's just something that philosophers of one sort or another are supposed to have read.

I also feel this way. But rationally, I think we should all get over these feelings. So here's my proposal: let's have a confessional thread. It should be used exclusively for confession (no shaming!). Anyone who wants to can write in with philosophical work(s) they think they're supposed to have read but haven't. Hopefully this helps us all realize that we're ok.

This could be fun. I think it could be interesting to hear both what people haven't read, but also why. Is it simply that you haven't had enough time? Or is it some other reason, such as that you're just not interested in the topic or the literature surrounding it for some reason? Remember, no shaming other commenters! (Also, if you do share a reason why you haven't read something, please be sure to respect the Cocoon's supportive mission).

Freelance work for philosophers?

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

What are the best options for freelancing as a professional philosopher? For example, say someone is a FT philosophy instructor looking to pick up summer work or earn extra money during breaks or the school year. What are the best types of freelance work, and where are the places to find them?

I’m thinking there may be options for tutoring, editing, etc., but I’m not sure where to start or if this is a fruitful path...

This is a great question, in part because good answers to it might help graduate students and academic job-candidates to explore and develop "plan B's" outside of academia. Any of you have tips or other suggestions?

Grappling with tenure-track blues?

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

This might not seem like a philosophy question. But I am a philosopher that needs help, and philosophers might understand my situation better than others.

So the short story: I am broken hearted for the very first time. I have a TT position, but I can't focus on anything. It has been some time, and it has not gotten better.

Any advice? How do you move on from this and care about philosophy again? To make matters much worse, I have no living family, and philosophy has my friends both very busy and randomly placed across the country - or the world even.

Although I have put 150% into this my work the last 10 years, and have secured what many of you dream of, it all seems so unimportant - professional philosophy is not anything like what I hoped. Most of it seems a game. This is where I feel the need to qualify things with, "Oh, but I have a nice career and published a lot in such and such fancy places, blah blah," as philosophers always seem to do. It makes me sad and tired -the never-ending game. I just want my person back. But it seems I can't have that. Besides therapy, what can I do?

To all of you suffering on the market but sleeping next to someone who loves you - trust me, you are the lucky one. Please don't forget it.

I empathize, and think this is a great query. As someone who spent a long time on the job market (8 years, 7 of which were post-PhD), I was one of those who thought that getting a TT would 'make everything better.' But, as with the OP, it didn't--well, at least not very quickly (things have gotten better over time). In brief, I think it is entirely natural to struggle with what we might call the tenure-track blues (see e.g. here and here). As the OP notes, academia in general can be very isolating: even if you get a TT job, you generally have to move away from friends and family to a new area where you know no one. Worse, you have to work your tail off, both in order to feel like you deserve the job you got but also (obviously) in order to get tenure. This too can be an isolating grind, as it can leave you without much time to enjoy life, make new friends, and so on. And of course you can feel, as the OP does, that academia is just a game that doesn't really much matter.

I'm curious what readers think. Have you grappled with the TT blues? If so, do you have any tips for the OP? Here are a few suggestions based upon my experience...

Publishing in 'Oxford Studies in...'?

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

What’s the deal with the “Oxford Studies in X”? How does one publish in these volumes and what is the perception within the field generally, or of various Xs?

My sense is that these publications are viewed as quite prestigious. However, I'm not entirely sure how to publish in them. I do know that most papers presented at the annual Arizona Workshop in Normative Ethics appear in the Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics. But, beyond this I don't know much about the Oxford series. Any of you out there have the inside scoop?

Tips for an unusual grad applicant?

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

I finished my undergraduate degree in philosophy and a related field four years ago. At that time, I was not interested in pursuing professional philosophy, having been advised to wait and see if a safer, non-academic career might work.

Since then, I have continued to do philosophical research on my own time and have published one paper in a top specialist journal, and am working on an R&R for a top-20 generalist journal (assume for the sake of this post that the R&R makes it to publication as well). In both cases the referees have been enthusiastic and positive about the papers' arguments and contributions. So I assume that if I apply for graduate school, I will have a strong writing sample.

My undergraduate transcripts, however, are generally inconsistent and would be a major concern to an admissions committee. Despite a general upward trend (culminating in all A+'s in my final semester), my grades fall all the way across the spectrum (A+'s, F's, B's, etc), including philosophy and non-philosophy classes. Much of that was due to an untreated mental health condition. I did have good relationships with certain professors and can reliably assume that my letters will be strong but not exceptional.

I think my situation is unique because you would not generally expect someone with poor undergraduate transcripts and no graduate training to publish good papers. I am not saying my papers are outstanding (they aren't), I am just saying that they were deemed publishable and potentially publishable by referees and editors at good journals.

So here is my question: Based on what I've described, would my application be the kind that gets tossed by an R1 because my transcripts are much worse than those of top applicants, or would I be given a fair shot and actual, close consideration given the research I've done? Note that I'll only apply to programs whose faculty strengths match my research interests.

I understand that these 'what if' application questions come off as insecure and validation-seeking. But as you all know, applying is a substantial time and energy commitment, and I would really appreciate any thoughts and advice you might have. Thank you!

Interesting question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I would think that it’s a toss-up. Some committees might not look twice at you. Others will be intrigued. You should explain your upward trajectory, both to your letter writers and in your application. Ask your letter writers if they are comfortable writing a strong letter for you, ask them to be honest. I don’t think there are many applicants with publications, so I would anticipate success *somewhere*. I would apply somewhat widely and also to funded MAs. It’s a fairly unpredictable process. It’s frequently the case that people are rejected from lower ranked programs than they are accepted to. There is no clear hierarchy of candidates based on shared criteria. So ... good luck!

I agree with the general advice here, though I guess I'm a bit more optimistic than thinking it is likely to be just a 'toss-up.' After all, Unusual Applicant reports having published in a top specialist journal and having an R&R at a top-20 generalist journal, all with only an undergraduate degree. Although I've never been on a grad school admissions committee, it seems to me from the outside that these features of their application alone seem likely to me to get their application noticed--and assuming (as seems likely) that the publications are actually good work, the writing sample they submit is good, and their recommendation letters are strong, it seems to me that they should look like a really intriguing applicant. I, at any rate, would be intrigued. I do think they should address their spotty undergraduate record in some way, though I'm not sure about the best way to do it. For example, should they say that they had "now-resolved health issues" as an undergraduate that interfered with their studied? Should they disclose this to their letter-writers, if they don't already know the context behind the Unusual's spotty performance? Or, should they not disclose anything about health struggles, and just say in their application (and to their letter writers?) that they recognize their undergraduate record was spotty (due to early 'personal issues'?) but emphasize their upward trajectory, saying perhaps that as a young person it took them a little bit to mature and get their act together? I have to confess that I have no idea what the best way to address these things may be. 

What do you all think? Will Unusual Applicant be competitive in getting into grad programs? Given their spotty (though upward-trending) undergrad record, would they be best-served pursuing a Masters at the top MA program first? And how might they best address their record and trajectory, both in their applications and in communication with their letter-writers?

Tips for reviewing book manuscripts?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Kian Mintz-Woo writes:

I have been asked for the first time to evaluate a manuscript. The editor mentioned a 'small fee' or the equivalent in books. I am interested in the topic of the manuscript, know and like the (similarly junior) author, and believe I would be well-placed to comment on it. However, I know it is a massive time commitment and I am sure the 'small fee' is nowhere close to the value of that time.

What is a normal timeline for reviewing a manuscript (this is not very long--the author expects <100k words)? It is worth noting that the editor has mentioned that they can be very flexible abut the reviewing time. Are there other things I should keep in mind? (Should I basically just say no to manuscript reviews until I'm a mid-career academic?) Is there a reasonable range to expect the 'small fee' to be? (I am sure it's not worth haggling or anything like that, but even if I wanted to I don't know enough to do it.)

Is it relevant that I like the press and might pursue them in the future, as I think it is with journals (although, because of subject area, not this particular editor)?

Do I basically review the book like I would articles, just on a larger scale--i.e., track the argument as it unfolds over chapters? Or should I also be thinking about things like audience and sales (!) I would also add some copy-editing in, because I like to do that as well.

I searched through Phil Cocoon for advice on this and--while you have lots of discussions about preparing proposals--you don't (appear!) to have anything about evaluating them. Thanks for any thoughts or advice!

These are good questions that I suspect many early-career people might benefit from hearing good answers to. Here are some quick thoughts...

How to develop new research projects?

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

I'm an early career academic (in my first job post PhD). I've recently finished a couple of drafts based on PhD chapters and sent them to journals, and now I don't really know what to do next! This is the first time since my PhD began where I have had to effectively start from scratch. I'd love to know how academics navigate this - when faced with a blank page, how do you decide what to start working on next? What criteria do you use? My job is only temporary, so there is also the pressure of producing enough publications to make me a good candidate for jobs in a few years time.

These are great questions that, in my experience, many early-career people have. Indeed, I struggled with them earlier in my career myself! One reader submitted the following reply:

I have been a relatively successful researcher - for whatever that is worth. I would recommend that you extend your research into a neighboring topic, that is, investigate something near to what your thesis was on. Alternatively, go deeper into a topic that you have written on in your dissertation. You need to build on your strengths, and get some publications under your belt. And the best way to place them in good journals is to develop depth and build on your strengths. 

This seems like good advice, but I think there are other options too. In the past, I've shared some of the ways that I've found work for me in terms of developing new projects. For example, in this post, I shared the following three suggestions:

Should referees ever intervene with editors?

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

I refereed a journal submission a few months ago. I thought it was ok, but could use some revisions. I just looked at the submission and saw the other reviewer's comments. Basically, the reviewer is complaining that one paper, which was cited, wasn't engaged with enough, and that another paper that wasn't cited, which is somewhat relevant, should have been cited. That's it. On the basis of that they deem this submission as not sufficiently engaged with the literature. Since this is a niche topic I write about, I can confidently say that this is false. The submission does a decent job of engaging with the literature. My question is this: should I write to the editor to voice my disagreement with the other reviewer?

This is an interesting question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

No ... do not write to the editor to complain about the other referee. The two reports are supposed to be independent assessments. I do not like the practice of sharing referee reports like this anyway. But let the editor do her job now.

I have to confess to being more uncertain. If a referee seems like they are being unreasonable, I can see why another referee might want to intervene. But I also see the point that peer-review reports are supposed to be independent assessments. What do you all think?

Experiences w/Springer transfer desk?

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

I just want to know of people have tried transfer services for rejected papers at Wiley/Springer. There was a post on this a couple of months ago and no one replied. Just checking if people have tried it since then and can tell us what happens when you choose this option.

If you used a transfer service:
- Were the referee reports sent to the new journal?
- Did the editors start the process from scratch, or did they consider the reports you previously got?
- etc.

I'm curious about this too. I've gotten these emails from Springer several times recently after a paper of mine was rejected, and I've always ignored them, as I prefer to decide on my own where to send papers (and I usually like to revise papers at least a little bit post-rejection). But I'm curious to hear from readers who have tried it: how did the transfer desk service work, and how was your experience with it?

Being open about mental health issues?

(Updated with links to additional discussions of related issues).

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

I am a PhD candidate who is about one year away from defending and entering the job market. I wanted to know how open I should be about belonging to a protected mental health and disability category (both in my application materials, and on my social media which is under a pseudonym, but could be linked to me with some effort). I have bipolar disorder one, and I know that there is a lot of stigma surrounding mental health in general (and even more acute stigma surrounding mental illness that can involve psychosis). In my personal life I am quite open about this - I think that telling stories about what it is like to live with this disorder is important for destigmatizing it. It is also important to me to be open about it because I think I stand as a good example of how it is possible to live a very happy and productive life despite having this kind of disorder. However, I do not want my condition to count against me when I go on the market! This question was raised for me most focally this month because I wanted to tell a few stories of my experience on a social media platform for Mental Health Awareness Month, but I am quite nervous about the kind of impact that might have on my job prospects down the line. Any thoughts you all have would be very much appreciated.

This is an extremely important query. Unfortunately, my experience is that there is real stigma against mental illness in the profession. As a case in point, another reader submitted the following reply:

First, the chief concern many hiring committees will have is that you might have a psychotic episode during the semester, and need to be hospitalized. Then they, your new colleagues, will have to scramble to cover your teaching - and they will often get no resources from the administration to do it. So imagine a five person department - now everyone's load is increased by 25 % because one person is on a medical leave. And there is no time to prepare lectures. And you might already being doing a 4-4 load ... and your own child is going through a teenage crisis, etc. No one wants that. Second, from my experience, it pays to indicate on the HR forms that you belong to a protected group. I have seen cases where HR intervened and insisted that files be considered.

I've known academic philosophers who have been very open about their mental illness, and at least anecdotally (from what they have reported), it may have very much worked against them on the job-market, impeding their ability to secure a permanent academic position. I've also known many academic philosophers (including tenured ones) who keep their mental illnesses a secret out of fear of discrimination. To be clear, I think this is awful. Mental illness is a veritable epidemic in academia, yet social norms in the profession incentivize people to keep their illnesses a secret. So unfortunately, my sense is that one has to make a very difficult choice: one can either be open about one's health and be an advocate against stigmatization--but at a potentially serious risk to one's career--or one can keep it a secret. I'm not sure there is any 'right choice' here. One must, I think, simply make a choice one can live with. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Update: Justin Weinberg (South Carolina) kindly drew my attention to these two Daily Nous discussions of mental health in academic philosophy.

Moving pre-tenure: getting research to count?

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

The recent discussions here about mid-career moves are very helpful. It is obvious that pre-tenure moves are way easier than after-tenure moves. I am wondering for those who moved before tenure, how much research at the previous institution was counted toward tenure at the new institution? I am especially curious about the kind of case in which one has already met the tenure standard at the new institution, and wondering how much more one is expected to do. But knowing about other cases, such as moving from R2 or SLAC to R1, would definitely be helpful too! Thank you!

Good question. Mike Titelbaum submitted the following reply:

The details are complicated, but the general answer is if you’ve done enough research to meet the new institution’s standards, it won’t be a problem that you did it while somewhere else. As for the details, they depend a lot on the rules at the new institution. Here at UW we recently had two experienced Assistant Profs start and go up for tenure after just over a year. The tenure committee focused on their work during a “probationary period”, which was defined by our university’s tenure rules, but stretched back a number of years into their previous employment. Exactly how that works will vary from place to place, and may be a bit obscure even to administrators at a given institution. But this is a great question to ask someone at a potential employer to figure out the specific answer to during the interview process!

It would be great to hear from readers with some experience here!

Making a mid-career leap of out academia?

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

I'd like to hear from people who left academia for personal reasons when the going was good. My partner & I have an international two-body problem that has resisted solutions for years. They are a couple of years from tenure while I am up for tenure soon. My publishing profile is excellent, theirs is good but not stellar due to a range of reasons, some beyond their control. An international relationship is not feasible in perpetuity. But leaving a promising career for unknown waters (in the midst of a pandemic, at a certain age) is terrifying--and I am the one considering leaving for personal reasons (their close-knit family is in their country, my country is not friendly to my identity & medical needs, I have had other jobs before academia).

I'd like to know how people knew when to make the leap and how they managed to survive financially. I have been exploring alt-ac for a while (coding, editing work) but I enjoy my research too much to want to just leave academia. And I have a slight worry about what might happen if my partner don't get tenure, and we are both out of work.

This is a great query, and I know of philosophers (such as Zachary Ernst) who have left TT or even tenured positions for very good post-academic careers. However, I don't have any first-hand experience with any of this or feel qualified to opine on any of it. So, are there any readers who fit the OP's description who are willing to weigh in? Any experiences, tips, or insights you think might be helpful to share?

Navigating 2-body problems in different markets?

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

What options are there for navigating the two-body problem for junior academics? Suppose the couple in question are both junior academics (less than 5 years out of PhD), both in analytic philosophy, but different areas of specialisation.

The most relevant job markets in my case are the UK and European ones. I've heard some rumours about things like joint hires, or job shares being a possibility, but I am unclear about the logistics of this. For example, would one apply for a single post, and then try to negotiate? If so, would this negotiation occur at interview or offer stage? Or would one be strictly limited to applying to job searches where there were at least two positions available? Thank you!

This is a great query, as a lot of philosophers (and academics more generally) face this kind of difficult situation. One reader submitted the following (disappointing) reply:

I work in Europe, and where I am it is almost wholly impossible to expect a second position for a partner. At best, where I am, you can get a three year contract position for your partner, and then hope a permanent position is opened in their area. But then they have to apply for it. My sense is that this sort of negotiating is easier in the US.

I'm curious to hear from other readers. What options are there for navigating two-body problems for junior academics? Obviously, it would be great to hear about the UK and European markets, since those are the ones the OP specifically asked about. But it would also be good to hear about other markets too, since this isn't just an issue that academics face in the UK and Europe. Any tips, experiences, or insights?

Tips for incoming grad students?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, anxious first-year writes:

I will be a first-year Ph.D. student at a mid-ranked program in the fall, and I am already beginning to worry about job placement, publishing, etc. Are there any steps folks would recommend taking now in order to start strengthening one's C.V.? Would it be too early to start publishing in one's first year, for example? Or more generally, anything one would have done differently in their early years as a PhD student? Thanks so much.

These are great questions, as I'm sure there are many newly accepted first-years with similar questions. In a follow-up comment, Peter writes:

I was in the same boat as you: got my PhD at a mid-ranked institution, was worried about job-placement from the getgo. I ended up doing very well on the job market after two tries. Here's my advice. It's certainly not *too early* to publish in your first year, but there's virtually n0 chance that you'll be able to, because, to be quite honest, your work probably won't be publishable. The first few years of grad school, I'd recommend just figuring out how *you* do philosophy best, and focus on identifying cool and interesting topics that actually catch your interest. If you focus so obsessively on publishing early, like I did, this'll probably actually stunt your ability to write and develop publishable work -- after all, even though the job market is largely a professionalization game, *interesting* papers are still the ones that are easiest to publish. Also, if your department is anything like mine, you might be starved for networking opportunities outside of your own department. Rather than trying to publish early, I would suggest making sure you're going to conferences early (no grad conferences! They don't contribute anything IMO). This way you can get more practice talking with philosophers who have a different philosophical vibe than you, and this can help greatly in developing interesting research.

I wonder what readers think. Do you have any tips or helpful resources for incoming first-year grad students? For my part, I've heard very good things about Jason Brennan's book, Good Work If You Can Get It: How to Succeed in Academia. I went to grad school with Jason at Arizona, and he basically did everything right, whereas I did most things wrong. So, I think he's probably a good resource here. I'd also suggest reading Daniel Silvermint's Daily Nous post, 'Grad Traps!', and the comments section over there. My general thoughts about succeeding in grad school (viz. success after grad school) are these:

1. Develop as a philosopher and as a teacher: some jobs are at research institutions, others at teaching institutions, and you'll probably want to be as competitive for as many jobs as you can. Also, in terms of teaching, get solo-teaching experience (such as during summers) if you can. Hiring committees at teaching schools care a lot about real teaching experience above and beyond TA-ships.
2. Publish as early as often as you reasonably can, but under the guidance of grad faculty (you want to publish good stuff, not garbage!).
3. Stay involved and develop good relationships with people: not only faculty and grad students in your program, but also people outside of your program.
4. Publish in good journals if you can, but don't fall prey to the common advice 'not to publish at all in bad journals': all of the empirical evidence that I've come across suggests that 'weak publications' help candidates, at least if combined with publications in good journals.
5. Bear in mind the kind of jobs you are the most likely to be competitive for post-graduation given the kind of PhD program that you are in: lower-ranked programs appear to tend to place candidates in teaching schools, high-ranked programs in research institutions. If you're in a lower-ranked program and you try to position yourself primarily for jobs at research institutions (by focusing on publishing rather than teaching), you may find yourself in a very difficult position after graduation: one where you'll struggle to outcompete graduates of top-ranked programs for jobs at research institutions, but also struggle to be competitive for jobs at teaching institutions.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Feel free to share any tips, experiences, or resources you think incoming philosophy grad students might find helpful!

How can we help you? (May 2021)

Now that it's been close to 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.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

Norms for citing oneself?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader ('Narcissus (young and not established)') asks: Is it lame to cite yourself? One reader submitted the following response: 

The only reason to cite yourself is if it adds to the support of the argument. And please only cite published papers. The problem with self-citing is that is too often abused.

I think the first point here should go without saying, as that's just a general norm of citation: cite things relevant to the paper's argument. And, in general, I think the second point (about only citing published papers) is right, though I think there are scenarios in which citing unpublished work is fine (note: this is often done in the sciences, where preprints posted to the ArXiv are often cited prior to journal publication). Still, I'm curious what readers think: what norms do you think should govern self-citation?

Mid-career moves?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader ('feeling stuck') writes:

I have a question about mid-career growth and/or moves. I'm up for tenure soon, and all signs suggest I will be successful. I should feel relieved and grateful, but I don't see much room for growth at my very, very small institution and feel a bit stuck. My position is primarily teaching and service with very little research support, though I've tried to establish a robust research trajectory. I love teaching, but I don't want to only teach.

I'm super burnt out, but feel like I need to stay competitive (whatever that means) in case something else comes along. But I'm also in a good location and close to family, and reluctant to give that up. Are these just normal growing pains? Is it okay to feel like I'm settling? Any advice from others at small institutions?

Great questions, and I'm curious to hear what other readers think. My sense is that it can be very difficult to move institutions after tenure, particularly if you're at a small institution--as most senior jobs seem to be at research institutions, hiring people from other research institutions. I do know a few people who moved from small institutions to senior positions at R1s post-tenure, so I do know that it can be done, at least in principle. However, these cases seem few and far between, and in today's market environment it seems to me one probably has to be a 'rock star' of sorts at research to be competitive for these jobs.

In terms of the OP's final questions ('Are these just normal growing pains? Is it okay to feel like I'm settling?'), my sense from talking to people is that it is totally normal, and quite a lot of people feel this way. Most of us were educated in top research departments, and so it can be natural (even for those of us who value and enjoy teaching) to wish that we had more time and resources for research. Still, as natural as these wishes may be, I guess my thoughts here are three-fold: (1) One shouldn't look a gift-horse in the mouth as it were. Those of us who have full-time tenured (!) jobs are in general very lucky to have them, and it is entirely possible to be a good and productive researcher even with a high teaching load; (2) If you're that burnt out (as the OP says), then one of the great things about tenure is that it provides a lot more freedom to decide where to invest one's energies (one can, for example, back off from particularly intensive teaching practices to focus more on research); and (3) Although there's nothing wrong with 'settling', it's entirely up to you whether you want to keep pushing (as it were) to publish in top places in pursuit of a potential move to another institution (again, I've known people who did it!).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Tailoring referee standards to journals?

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

I have a question about writing referee reports and matching one's standards to the selectiveness of the journal.

I'm relatively new to writing referee reports and am finding it difficult to know whether and how to match my standards of evaluation to the selectiveness of the journal. To what extent do others try to do this, and could anyone recommend any specific strategies? I feel like I just find myself asking whether the paper adds something important to the scholarly discussion as a whole (and whether it does so in a clear, effective way, etc.), and I don't really have any specific strategies for assessing things differently based on the particular journal's standards.

Great question, and I'm curious what readers think. I've refereed for journals all over the map (top 5 journals, unranked journals, etc.), and I definitely use different standards. I always try to hold authors to standards of soundness and cogency, for obvious reasons. So, for me, the main issue in terms of tailoring my standards to journals is my sense of the piece's overall significance. For example, I tend to be a bit puzzled when I see a paper in a top-5 journal that makes what I take to be a very small move in a well-worn philosophical debate. This isn't to say that small moves aren't worth publishing (surely, they can be). It just strikes me that particularly selective journals should be in the business of publishing particularly noteworthy works that make major contributions to ongoing debates, and that smaller, less significant moves probably belong in other journals. Is it possible for a very small move to make a major contribution? Sure, Gettier's famous paper in Analysis is a perfect example. But papers like this strike me as far and away the exception, not the rule. 

Anyway, that's my main deciding factor for tailoring my refereeing standards to journals. But, having read such journals, my sense is that other referees may tailor their standards in different ways. For example, some particular journals seem to place a priority on formalizations (viz. formal logic and decision theory). Personally, I think formalizations tend to be overused in philosophy--but I recognize this view is idiosyncratic to me. Anyway, what do you all think, particularly (but not only) those of you who have reviewed for different kinds of journals? How do you tailor your standards to different journals? Or, alternatively, how do you think referees should tailor their standards?

When editors ignore your reviews?

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

I have a question about good practices for reviewers. In the past few months this happened to me 3 times. I was asked to review a paper for a top journal in my AOS. This paper is really really bad. It's bad in the following sense: the topic is important, the thesis is interesting, but it'so poorly written and argued that, if I did something like that myself, I'd get for sure a rejection. However, I recommend major revisions. After a few weeks I got the revisions back, and nothing much has changed. I can see what the other reviewer has suggested, and it's minor revision. I then suggest rejection and the paper is accepted. From this I understand that the paper was either from an established scholar, or from a student of an established scholar. I feel I'm wasting my time by doing my diligent work of reviewer, given that the editor has already decided. Therefore, this is my question: when I have the feeling that something similar is happening again, shall I address the editor directly and ask how I should treat the paper? Or shall I just decline to review the revisions?

I'm glad Frustrated wrote in about this, as I think it's a great issue to discuss. Another reader submitted the following response:

Frustrated: is it possible that your standards are too high? Maybe this series of events has some other kind of takeaway. Three different editors have overridden your negative reports ... perhaps your standards are either too stringent or just out of keeping with what the editors are looking to publish. I've had an editor override a referee on one of my papers. The referee accused me of all kinds of weird things (like I'm *clearly* just a graduate student, and some senior scholar has made some edits to my paper) and seemed really irritated. The editor contacted me with this review and asked if I would make some changes. The paper was then sent out to a third referee, since the editor judged the second referee to have an overly harsh view of the paper. I was grateful to the angry referee despite all the mean-spirited commentary, since I was able to improve the paper. I am not an established scholar, nor is anyone running around wielding influence on my behalf. Did the editor act inappropriately? I don't think so, not at all. These are recommendations you are giving, not dictates.

This is more or less the reaction that I had to Frustrated's comment. If I am reading Frustrated's comment correctly, in just the past few months they have had three (different?) editors (at three different top-ranked journals?) ignore their negative referee reports in favor of more positive reports by other referees. What should Frustrated infer from this? While it's hard to know for sure without looking at the papers themselves, four things seem to me worth noting here:

1. Referees and editors at top-ranked journals tend to have very high standards (viz. high rejection rates).
2. In each of the cases the OP describes, at least one reviewer thought quite highly of the 'really really bad' paper in question, judging the paper to warrant only minor revisions.
3. The associate editors who handle a paper may be specialists in the area.
4. When they receive conflicting reports, these editors may read the paper themselves to decide which report(s) to trust.

Given these four things and given the fact that same thing has happened to Frustrated repeatedly, it seems to me that Frustrated should seriously consider that the possibility that (A) they are writing overly negative referee reports, and (B) that the papers they judge to be obviously really really bad aren't. After all, if the papers really were that bad, one would figure that someone else--either the other referees or the editors who read the reports and then the paper--would see this as well. But that's not what's happening here. In three separate cases, it seems, the editors have read the referee reports and the paper and decided for themselves that the other referees' positive reports are the ones to trust. 

Approaching other authors for feedback?

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

What are the norms for approaching other philosophers for feedback on your work? Say, philosophers who have published on your topic but who you don't know personally.

Great question! One senior member of the discipline submitted the following reply:

Over my career I have contacted many philosophers I did not know, and some were extremely receptive. Some were willing to read papers, some sent me things they were working on, etc. Some of these are well known philosophers. But some will just ignore you. That is, they will not even acknowledge your attempted contact. The key is to make contact first, without sending any paper. Explain your interest in their work. Clearly, if you really have no understanding of their work, then they will not be interested.

This seems right to me. I've reached out to other authors during my career (including well-known senior people), and some have been receptive and others not. The key, I think, is to not be presumptuous--though I think this can be difficult to pull off well. Any readers have any other tips for the OP? It might be good to hear not only from people who have approached other authors successfully, but also from people who have been contacted out of the blue by people like the OP. What comes off well? What comes off poorly?

Delays in accepted papers being published?

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

How long does it typically take to get a paper published online (counting pre-publication view) from the date that the paper is officially accepted?

I had a paper of mine accepted well over a year ago, and I still haven't even gotten proofs back from the publisher. I'm feeling extremely frustrated and anxious about this, but I also don't really know what's considered a normal turn-around time to publication.

This open-access online journal has a stellar reputation for having a transparent review process, but taking well over a year to getting the paper up online strikes me as absurd. There are already papers out on the same subject that will make my paper look out-of-date when (if?) it ever gets published.

Two readers submitted responses:

It depends on the journal. I waited about six months with HOPOS for the paper to go up ... and then a few more months for the proofs to arrive. I suspect I will be in a print issue about 13 or 14 months after it is accepted. But journals really vary a lot. - Submitted by H

In the meantime, if the publisher allows it (and I think many do), you can upload a preprint to an archive such as philpapers, indicating that the paper is forthcoming at the journal. This has many of the benefits of actual publication. It will be just as visible, it will be indexed by Google Scholar as a paper in that journal, and so on. - Submitted by ehz

H is right here: it can often take over a year for a paper to be published (though many journals publish them as 'online first' articles well before they appear in a journal issue). And ehz is also right: many journals allow authors to post preprints. However, it's really important to know the journal's policy here. Some journals don't allow preprints to be posted, some only allow them to be uploaded to the author's personal website (rather than e.g. philpapers) until an embargo period has been reached post-publication, and so on. 

However, the OP's description of their case concerns me. They report not even having received proofs for their article yet, which seems really strange to me. While it can often take over a year for an article to be published, my experience is that journals tend to move pretty quickly with proofs (it's never taken more than a month or two for me to receive proofs to check, and I've normally received them just a few weeks after acceptance). So I think the thing for the OP to do here is to reach out to the editors (or at least the managing editor) to find out what's going on. What do you all think?

Giving less effort for less pay?

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

I make less now than when I started my tenure track job, controlling for inflation. I think it's my right to give less effort on this basis. For example, if my employer is only paying me 90% of what it used to, for the same work, then I can give 90% of the effort I used to (the 90% is more than sufficient to cover the job requirements).

Some of you might disagree, but that's not my question. My question is instead: is it ok, morally, for me to lower my teaching effort? On the one hand, I care about teaching and the students did nothing wrong in this case. On the other hand, I don't want to let my employer leverage my conscience to get me to work uncompensated (giving the same effort for less pay).

I lean towards its being OK. After all, you get what you pay for, and the students are paying for an education from an institution that underpays its faculty. And my 90% is still better than whatever effort the dead wood at the institution is giving.

This is an interesting question, and I'm curious what readers think. One reader submitted the following response:

Your contractual obligations do not change. Depending where you work, you might find if you scale back you are in violation of your contract. You can be fired. Of course your pay should not shrink! I am not crazy. But, know the law. For example, public employees cannot strike in New York. And to act as you suggest you are going to act may in fact constitute a breach of contract.

This doesn't seem to me to be quite right, at least not given what the OP is describing. Professors are only contractually obligated to fulfill their assigned duties, which in this case is simply teach their classes (and do so competently). Contracts don't state that a person must 'give 100% effort' (or whatever). Rather, university handbooks standardly contain provisions for what comprises merit in teaching, which are normally used for tenure and promotion purposes--which is a different issue. So let's return to the OP's main question, which is whether it is moral for them to give less effort in response to receiving less pay.

Getting a job at a university that isn't hiring?

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

Is it ever feasible to try and get a job at a university that isn't hiring (sounds silly I know)? For example, suppose I really want to live in location y, but the only university in y is not hiring. Is it a total waste of time to approach the university and try to sell myself anyway? Has anyone ever gotten a job this way? I know this happens all the time in the private/non-academic world. I'm wondering if it ever happens in the academic world.

Interesting questions. I expect it could be possible, but only if you are a really in-demand candidate (i.e. a 'superstar'), and maybe then only if you're a tenured person who is a big name of sorts. But I don't really know. This is really just me speculating. I do know that, at universities like mine, approval of tenure-stream lines is a big process that has to go through the Dean, Provost, President, etc., so I think it's highly unlikely that approaching the university to try to sell yourself would work. At most, the university might approve a tenure-stream line the next year, and you'd have to apply like everyone else. Also, on that note, I don't know how other universities work, but mine seems to have a standing policy of making all hires international, open searches. I think there may even be equal opportunity laws that require this, but I'm not sure--as I do know that sometimes research universities just make offers to (usually senior) people without doing full searches. 

What do you all think? Anyone have any better inside information than me here?

Getting into philosophy with a science PhD?

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

I'm a Ph.D. student in science and about to get my Ph.D. degree this year (so I won't just quit). But I am also interested in some lifetime metaphysical and epistemological questions and want to contribute to them. (It sounds arrogant, but let's firstly assume I have the potential.)

However, my goal is basically impossible without strict philosophical training, which I don't have. As far as I consider, there are two possible ways.

1) I spend another 4-5 years on another graduate program in philosophy;
2) Collaborate with philosophers working on relevant topics and contribute with my scientific skills primarily and get trained.

For the first option, since I don't have any academic background in philosophy, I don't know how hard it is to get a position. And if I do so, I nearly give up my potential scientific career, which I would rather not.

For the second option, I have no idea how to find philosophers that want to work with scientists.

Here, I ask for your consideration of the two possibilities. How difficult are they? How can I manage them? Or any other possibility you could suggest?

And after all, how should I evaluate whether I have the potential to make a contribution?

Good questions! Prof L. submitted the following reply:

Approaching soft job market years in a postdoc

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

How should one think about soft job market years while on a postdoc? Should you take one every year, or relax if you've got a few years to go? How time consuming are they, and what other factors should be considered?

These are good questions, which apply equally well to VAPs (Visiting Assistant Professor positions), and I'm curious to hear how readers respond. I'm apt to think that because the market is in many ways a lottery--and you never know how your luck may play out year to year--it's probably a good idea to apply each year, all things being equal. Applying each year may simply be the best way to maximize your overall chances of getting a permanent job. Still, not all things may be equal. Let me explain.

Teaching portfolio syllabi: full or abridged?

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

I have a really small question about the sample syllabi one includes in a teaching portfoli. How full should these syllabi be? My full syllabi include all sorts of info about grading, course expectations, description, info about plagiarism and writing help resources, etc. Am I right to assume potential employers don't want to wade through all of this, and so I should strip down the versions in my teaching portfolio to the essentials (maybe reading list, course description...what else)? If so, what should I include and not? 

Good questions! I'm not sure on all of them, but I would think that info on grading and course expectations are good to include, as I've known search committee members who care a lot about how things are graded, how grading is distributed in the course (across different kinds of assignments), and so on. I'm not sure about other things, though, such as plagiarism policies, etc. What do you all think?

Submitting R&Rs late?

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

Is there a penalty for returning an R&R a few days late? It is due imminently. I've already asked for a (brief, roughly 3 week) extension once and don't want to ask again. But I haven't been able to work much on it and at this point I feel like few extra days will make a real difference to the quality of the revised manuscript I submit. Thanks everyone.

Another reader responded, "I would just ask again. But there's probably no penalty." I don't have any experience submitting things late, so unfortunately I can't offer advice or share any experiences here. But I'm curious: do any readers out there have experiences worth sharing? Emailing the editor seems like the best thing to do if one can't get an R&R on time. But I'm curious, in particular, whether people have submitted R&Rs late with no problems, or whether people have run into serious issues with this.

Tips regarding academic jobs in Italy?

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

Folks have asked about jobs in various European places before and the discussions are usually interesting. But on a quick search of the site I don’t see much about working in Italy. If anyone knows anything I’d love to hear it. Specific questions to get the ball rolling: how does the hiring process work? Are there job ads or do you just gotta have your ear to the ground? What’s pay like? What’s work like? Are professors respected in Italy? Stuff like that.

Great questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

I'm Italian, working in another European country. All jobs are listed here: https://bandi.miur.it/ You have to search per area of specialisation, which are quite strict (Moral philosophy, Logic and Phil SC, etc). The majority of jobs will require proficiency in Italian and, I'd say, many jobs have internal candidates. For jobs that don't need Italian proficiency, you'll hear from the usual channels such as Philos, philjobs, etc. To be eligible to apply for Associate professorship, you need a national habilitation (called Abilitazione Nazionale). You need to meet some requirements in terms of publishing (most of the major philosophical journals are included in a list that a committee will consider) and service. For publishing, it's either a book or 10 articles/chapters in the past 5 years; a book and 3 articles from prestigious journals; or 10 articles/chapters and 3 articles from prestigious journals. Requirements of service are not really clear. There are also a few tenure track jobs: they are called 'ricercatore a tempo determinato b' (rtd b). When you get one of these jobs, you are promised a tenured position after 3 years, pending the achievement of the Abilitazione Nazionale. Pay is not very good, if compared to nearby countries such as Austria or Switzerland. Just anecdotally: when I was a VAP in the US, I made more money than an associate professor. However, unless you live in Rome or Milan, life is cheap and the quality of life is just great. Overall, I think that philosophers in Italy, if they are tenured, live a pleasant and intellectually stimulating life (at least the ones I know). They have tons of time for research and, in general, very few people cares about teaching (but that's something characterizing Europe overall). Moreover, I'd like to add that in my field (philosophy of science), there are great and competitive scholars.

This comment is really helpful, and enlightening to boot (as an outsider, it is always interesting to hear how things work in different countries!). Any other readers with experience in philosophy in Italy have any other helpful information to share?

Journal submission embargoes?

In one of our recent "how can we help you?" threads, a reader writes:

Can someone explain to me why, for the past two years at least, Nous and PPR have not accepted submissions for about 8 months out of 12? I'm a bit new to things, and this seems like, well, a rare practice. Also, if I'm honest, I guess I find it a bit frustrating as a junior person. I totally understand that reviewers are people and all of that; but I honestly just don't see why those two journals, out of all of them, have implemented this seemingly eccentric policy.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

[Y]es there is a reason. These journals get so many submissions that at one point they close down so that an even larger backlog does not accumulate.´ It is one way to deal with the problem. I published in Nous, around the time these embargoes were first introduced. How does it feel to publish in Nous? Fine. But I work in a sub-field where the main general philosophy journals are not the key place to publish. If you work in M&E it is probably more important to try to publish in such journals.

For a bit more context, the OP and other interested readers might want to peruse David Velleman's 2017 guest post at Daily Nous, 'The Publication Emergency.' It is, I think, an unfortunate situation that two of the highest-ranked generalist philosophy journals have submission embargoes - and I can't help but wonder whether the embargoes might be a bit self-defeating, in that there are presumably legions of people who wait each year until October 1st to submit papers the moment the embargoes are lifted (thus deluging those journals with submissions). But presumably those journals would have vastly more submissions were it not for the embargoes, so I don't know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Online conference ideas for spending spare $ on?

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

I have a question that is likely to be relevant to quite a few current postdocs, but not only to them.

I find myself in a position where I have a reasonably short-term postdoctoral research position which, while it lasts, has a decent amount of money allocated specifically for research event expenses. I had intended to put on a fairly big conference on the topic of my research project which would have cost a fair amount, but since this has been moved online due to the pandemic the funds are going unused (and the participants are no longer getting treated to a nice meal or two and a stay in an interesting place).

I wonder if anyone has any recommendations for fun and/or interesting supplements to online conferences that it would be worth spending some money on, and that participants would be likely to appreciate?

Good question - any ideas from readers?

Can one remain competitive while teaching K-12?

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

I have a question about "staleness" and the job market.

I just defended my dissertation. Last year I got a position as the Logic/Philosophy (and Latin) teacher at a middle/high school. My PhD was a major factor in my being hired, outweighing my lack of an Ed degree or significant K-12 experience. So I'm employed as a philosopher in a FT academic position, but not in a traditional way.

I love my job and at this point I feel like I could stay here forever. But I don't want to assume that's what's going to happen, and I could see myself wanting more time for research someday, so I continue to watch the market.

So suppose for the next several years I teach middle/high school philosophy, publish 1-2 articles a year (given I'm teaching 6-8 classes at a time and have a family), adjunct here and there, and then apply for TT positions. Would I be seen by committees as an early/mid-career philosopher making a lateral or upward move, or a "stale" PhD grad who never "made it"? Or how do I prepare and present myself so as to appear (as I actually would be) the former rather than the latter?

(FWIW The program here is pretty rigorous. Students take a year of informal logic and two years of formal logic in middle school, so once they reach high school they're better prepared for a philosophy class than the vast majority of college students I've taught.)

Great questions! I'm curious to hear what readers think. I'm inclined to think that if a person in this situation really does publish one or two articles per year while teaching K-12 and adjuncting at a university, then sure, they could remain competitive--at least for jobs at teaching focused universities and community colleges. Further, I can't help but wonder whether, if they found a way to publish in top-ranked journals, they might remain competitive for postdocs or research jobs. But I'm inclined to think that (A) a lot turns on whether they do in fact continue to publish (which might be difficult while teaching K-12), and (B) whether they keep adjuncting (as I expect universities will favor candidates who have more university-level teaching experience over candidates with less). 

But these are just my reactions. What are yours?

Joining editorial boards while non-TT?

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

I have a general question about joining editorial boards/working as a journal editor while one is in a postdoc or a non-TT position. In short, is it worth it? Does having something like that on your CV look pretty good, enough to offset the responsibilities that come with it? Or is it generally better to wait until one is securely employed (and maybe tenured) before taking on that level of service to the profession?

And here's another more narrow question: if you - a non-TT philosopher - do interdisciplinary work, and you get invited to join an editorial board for a (reputable) journal in another field, should you do it?

Interesting questions! I'm inclined to think that it depends a lot on the journal. If it's a prestigious journal, then I'm inclined to think it may look impressive - as it indicates that well-recognized people in the discipline think highly of you and consider you an expert in the area. However, how likely is it that you'll be approached to join an editorial board at a journal like that while you're in a non-TT job? It seems unlikely to me, and that the more likely case is that you may be approached to be on an editorial board of a less-prestigious journal. And in that case, I'm not sure it's worth it, in terms of 'looking good' for the job market and later tenure decisions if/when you get a TT job. By a similar token, I'm not sure joining the editorial board of a reputable (but not particularly prestigious) interdisciplinary journal is likely to help much on the philosophy job-market.

So, since editorial responsibilities can be time-consuming, and the primary things you'll be judged on while you're on the market or a tenure decision will be research and teaching, I'm inclined to think that in most cases, it's probably not worth joining an editorial board while non-TT. Indeed, I've known junior people who have worked for journals, and I've heard it can be a lot of work (without, again, a lot of 'upside'). For these reasons, I'm inclined to think that it's generally better to wait until tenure to join editorial boards - unless, of course again you're invited to join a particularly prestigious journal (in which case that is, I think, a different story).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Putting recommended verdicts in referee reports?

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

I have a question about referring. What are people’s thoughts about putting your verdict into your report for the author? E.g. putting “I am recommending revise & resubmit …” or “I am recommending rejection because …” somewhere near the beginning. Do you think it is best practice to always do this, or perhaps to refrain from it? The editor of course already knows the referee’s verdict, but I’m asking about a referee communicating that verdict directly to the author. As an author I sometimes have to read the tea leaves about whether a referee thought a paper should be revised or just rejected. I’d be interested to hear what authors and referees think, but also editors as well. Maybe there's a reason that info shouldn't always be included?

Chivers Butler responded:

I suspect this would result in authors arguing with editors over their decisions, or at least attempting to get them to justify their decisions when they differ from that of (one of) the referees.

I'm actually a bit surprised by this response. As a referee, I always either put some kind of recommendation or other in my review for the author, or in a few rare cases have explained why I had trouble arriving at a firm recommendation. I've just always assumed this to be good practice, and I've always been thankful as an author when referees are clear about their recommendations.

How can we help you? (March-April 2021)

Now that it's been close to 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.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

Publishing philosophy without credentials?

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

I do not have an academic background in philosophy but nevertheless have ended up spending significant time working on a philosophy book for which has required vast amounts of research and reading. (I have worked with academics in the process to challenge my ideas & check I am not totally mad).

When published, I wonder if the academic audience will treat it as 'no-good' or not give it the time of day because it does not come from someone working in an institution. I am curious, is this likely or will it simply come to the quality of ideas?

This is a good question, and I am glad that someone asked! Allow me to share some thoughts before opening things for discussion.

How does 'networking' help?

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

I've been inspired by the discussion about ways to flourish in the profession as an introvert.

While many people have mentioned the importance of networking, I am wondering if people can share some concrete examples of the benefits from networking, especially for graduate students and junior faculty members.

I can see that networking could help a person find external members for their committee and have letters for the job market (grad student) or for promotion (junior faculty). I have a hard time seeing other benefits besides abstract things like knowing your name and knowing your work. For example, do people get invited to apply for some jobs or get invited to submit to a journal because of networking? Any other concrete examples?

These are great questions! I'd love to hear concrete examples not only from grad students and junior faculty, but also from senior faculty, including (for example) those who have served on search committees, edited books or special journal issues, etc. If you're a grad student or faculty member, do you know of any concrete examples of how 'networking' helped you? And, if you're a senior faculty member, do you know of concrete examples where it helped junior folk? 

Contacting profs before applying to postdocs?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, sahpa writes:

After washing out on the job market twice now, I'm contemplating a strategy for being a bit more proactive and selective in what I apply for, going forward.

I'm thinking about reaching out to professors (for European postdocs, where the norm is to be attached to a specific professor) in advance and just telling them a little about myself, and then asking them whether they think I might fit for the position they're looking to fill. This would be primarily to ascertain whether I should even bother applying. This could benefit both parties: me, because I could hopefully figure out quite cheaply whether to invest substantial time into the application itself; and them, because it would help them preemptively manage the pile of applications they'll receive. In this respect, it's a win-win.

However, I'm worried that, if this is just not really done, it might come off the wrong way. On the other hand, if a lot of these postdocs get filled through networks anyway (and I have some evidence, here and there, that that might be rather common), is this really problematic?

Can readers who have relevant experience in the European postdoc market weigh in?

Two readers submitted replies:

I work in Europe and I am familiar with the post-doc culture. I would NOT contact someone unless they have a post doc position advertised. I get contacted by two types of people about post doc positions: (i) those in foreign countries who want to get into a program with financial support (which I do not have, if there is no advertisement); and (ii) those in certain countries who may have funding from their home government and want to consider coming to work at my institution. Wait for an ad to be posted. Then contact the people. That is the normal way. - Submitted by Euro

It's a good idea, but the wrong method, I think. Conferences, seminars, and workshops are much better ways of finding out if more senior people are interested working with you. - Submitted by William Peden

I'm curious what other readers think. Euro seems to think it's fine to do after a job ad has been submitted. But I share the OP's and William Peden's concern that it could come off poorly. Then again, given how much time and effort it does take to apply to jobs, it also seems to me like a legitimate thing to do. It might be good to hear from people who have served on search committees (particularly for European postdocs), as well as from people who have either tried what the OP describes or who have been contacted by people in the OP's situation. What do you all think?

Can shy, timid people flourish in the profession?

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

Is a shy and timid person suitable for a philosophical profession? I am a phd student and not outgoing, and in fact quite unconfident. I usually doubt whether I am right when I defend my view. But I see so many philosophers confident and decisive. In fact, I barely meet anyone like me in this profession. I am wondering whether a timid person could do philosophy.

Great question, and I am curious to hear how readers answer, particularly those of you who match the OP's description. If you're shy and timid, have you found yourself 'suitable' for the profession? Have you been able to flourish? If so, how? Did you have to work to overcome your tendencies?

When to give up on the academic job market?

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

Here's a question that I could use an answer to. When is it time to give up on the tenure-track job hunt? I understand that in one way this depends on personal circumstances. That's not what I'm asking. I'm wondering at what point, after years of rejection, can you be reasonably confident that a tenure-track job is not going to happen.

I have a CV that's good enough for tenure at most R1s. At this point, will more books or articles or teaching experience help? I'm beginning to doubt it. I have gotten a lot of helpful feedback over the years, and the things I know would really help, like different demographics, I do not have control over.

These are good questions. As this philosophy job-placement graph illustrates, the job-market is basically a toss-up: depending on what kind of PhD program you graduate from, your overall chances of getting a tenure-track job are somewhere between 20-60%. Then there's the following graph, which I first posted about here: