The Philosophers' Cocoon

How can we help you? (July 2022)

Now that it's been a little over 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.

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

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• 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.

How can we help you? (June 2022)

Now that it's been a little over 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.

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

• 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.

How can we help you? (May 2022)

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

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

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

• 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!

How can we help you? (March 2022)

Now that it's been over 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.

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

• 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!

How can we help you? (February 2022)

Now that it's been over 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.

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

• 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!

How many applicants are PhD programs receiving?

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

I wish you all a happy new year. I would like to ask if the readers who serve on the admission committees at their schools (or are otherwise acquainted with the situation) know or have any guess how applications to PhD programs they have received or expect to receive this year, especially compared to the last year (when the applicant pool was so big) and earlier years (2020, 2019..).

This is an excellent query. I have heard anecdotally that some programs are way down in terms of the number of applications they've received this year, while other programs are either similar to or up from recent years. I've also heard, again anecdotally, that this might have something to do with whether programs require the GRE--which, for obvious reasons, might push applicants to apply instead to programs than no longer require them. 

Any readers (e.g. on PhD admissions committees) willing to share how large their applicant pools are this year compared to recent years? This might not only provide some idea of big-picture trends (in philosophy PhD applications in general), but also perhaps help us to understand the causes of them. It might also be good to hear from applicants too! Did you apply to fewer PhD programs this year for some reason? If so, why?

How can we help you? (January 2022)

Happy New Year everyone! Now that it's been over 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.

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

• 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!

Presenting a paper too many times?

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

Lately, I've been wondering about conferences, and to the extent to which it's acceptable to give the same talk at multiple conferences. Obviously, I know that most people present their work at multiple venues, but is there an upper limit to this? I suspect people might look oddly at a CV that had twenty presentations of the same idea.

I haven't reached anything close to that point yet, but I'm an early-career scholar who teaches a 4/4. As such, I haven't gotten a ton of new writing done since March 2020. But I have continued presenting old work, in part to keep my CV up to date and in part because I like attending conferences. In my case, this work remains unpublished, and each time I presented it was to a very [sic] audience. However, I wondering if there are some ideas I should 'retire' at this point because they have had their moment to shine.

This is an interesting question. On the one hand, I'm sort of inclined to say, "Present it as many times as you want!". It's your paper, after all. You may well get good feedback each time, and in any case there are multiple reasons to want to attend conferences, including exposing yourself to new work, etc. On the other, you might get bored presenting it so many times; you might keep getting the same feedback; and you might start "eating into the journal reviewer pool" for the paper (i.e. presenting the paper to people who might be asked to review it for journals)--all of which might be reasons not to keep presenting it.

But I don't know: I routinely see people who present papers tons of times--not just at conferences, but at departmental colloquia, etc. So, I'm not sure whether any of these considerations are decisive. Finally, I guess if you keep presenting the paper, people might start to wonder why you haven't been able to publish it yet. But honestly, how many people out there spend this amount of time thinking about what other people are doing or not doing?

All of this is just a roundabout way of saying: I have no idea! What do you all think?

What actually helps on the job market?

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

On this blog, I have seen many questions like "Would X help my prospects on the job market," and often that answer is "No, X won't really make a difference." My question is: what actually, substantially, really, definitely makes a difference? What should grad students actually spend their time on?

Here are the things I think really, actually matter the most (please tell me if I am wrong!): prestige of the PhD-granting institution, publications in top journals, being a great fit for the job AOS/AOC wise, (at least for a lot of jobs) having some solid teaching experience. There are also so many random things at play that can play a major role, like how your personality meshes with the people on the committee, who knows who, who they just hired last year, etc.

It seems like most other things just don't make a big difference, at least enough where it's worth doing action X JUST because you think X will help you on the job market (versus, say, doing public philosophy stuff because you are passionate about it).

So, it seems like there is not too much that's actually both helpful to my prospects AND within my control (publish in top journals, meet a lot of people and seem cool/smart/professional to them, finish the program while keeping my sanity), and I should just focus on those things without worrying much about the rest. Does this sound right?

These are excellent questions, and I'm very curious to hear how readers respond. Allow me to make a few quick points before opening things up for discussion.

Hopeful tips for the stresses of an R1 job?

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

Simple question: how is a R1 job different from being a graduate student? (Wrong answers only.)

What I mean is, grad school can lead to burnout, especially if one is caught up in trying to publish and do everything possible to get a job. From what I hear, things are only more hectic and stressful if one succeeds in getting a job (with committees, teaching more, and trying to get tenure). If this is the case, then would many borderline burned out grad students be best off thinking about alt-ac careers? (Asking for a friend.)

I get that, perhaps once one gets tenure, then one's academic life might become less stressful. And maybe, if one's initial job is right, then there might not be as much stress w/r/t becoming tenured. As someone who's relatively new on the job market, though, it does seem like there is a decent chance that, if I get a job, the relative stress will only increase. This concerns me.

A more positive spin on my question might be: what is the most hopeful thing you might tell a grad student who faces a precarious job market and an increased set of responsibilities even in the best case scenario in which she lands a R1 job? In what ways will the job that she's hoped for be truly worthwhile?

These are interesting questions, and I'm very curious to hear readers' answers. If you work at an R1, how would you answer?

Publishing a book after leaving academia?

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

I have a question about book publishing. I am two and a half years post-PhD and have transitioned to non-academic full-time work after poor luck on the job market. I still find myself wanting to continue publishing work in academic philosophy, beyond journal articles. Would any decent book publisher (e.g. Routledge, Palgrave, Wiley, university presses) take seriously a proposal for a scholarly monograph from someone now entirely outside academia, assuming a completed manuscript was submitted?

This is a good question, and I don't know the answer. Any readers out there have any helpful insights?

Specialty journal rankings?

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

There's the best generalist journals, and best moral/political journals on Leiter's website. But how about other fields? How do we figure out which are the best journals in our fields and how they are ranked?

I'm not a big fan of rankings. Still, this is a fair question, since it's probably important for grad students, job-candidates, and tenure candidate to know--and, to be honest, I've sometimes wondered this myself. I mean, I have some idea (for example) of which journals seem to be well thought of in the philosophy of science or (to take another example) feminist philosophy. But in terms of how to rank them? I must confess that I have little idea! And what about other philosophical subfields? Here, things are even less clear to me.

Anyway, I think it would be great to hear from readers. What are your philosophical subfields, and what are the most well-regarded journals in them? Also, if you have a rough 'ranking' in mind for journals in your subfield, feel free to give it. I'm really curious to find out more about various subfields, and figure there are probably other readers who probably feel the same way. Inquiring minds want to know! ;)

Predicting fly-outs on the basis of interviews?

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

Now that readers are doing interviews, I was wondering if we could field thoughts on how well, in your experience, your sense of how the interview went correlates to success in getting job talks (or from job talk to offer). Have readers ever gotten offers from truly terrible interviews? Or not gotten offers from interviews that seemed guaranteed to go through? Can you get a sense of how interested the committee is in your application based on how they act in the interview setting? Curious for your thoughts!

Another reader submitted the following response:

I think that job candidates can tell almost nothing from (1) their sense of how an interview went or (2) how interviewers act. First you may not have a good sense of how the interview "went." That's because how an interview goes is not just about your own performance, but how others perform. You can't know that by your own sense of whether your answers were good, whether you presented yourself as a collegial candidate who knows your material, has thought carefully about teaching, etc. It's also because we often misjudge, in either direction, how well we've done. Interviews I feel that I bombed were perceived by the interviewers as awesome and vice versa (I know this from later conversations). Sometimes they are looking for things you just don't know about. In one interview, I answered a question very carefully in a way that aligned with my sense of how I "should" answer. Apparently that answer was the direct opposite of what they were wanting (and what I'd been prepped to say in grad school). But I felt like that interview went well--I didn't get a flyout.

Second, that kindly nodding interviewer? The one who seems to be listening intently, smiling, and sending out good vibes? They may be your worst critic. The one with furrowed brows may think you are their best candidate. Unless you already know these people and how their visible cues are linked to their internal states, you can't tell were you stand with them. And, again, after the interview, a lot happens. You may have interviewed "the best" (whatever that amounts to) that you possibly could have for that position. But the committee has to then navigate questions about fit, about internal politics and whose favorite candidates get invited, etc. So you can't read anything from how you think *they think* the interview went. The best advice I can give (having been interviewing for about six years now, with success at all stages, though shy of an offer) is to interview having prepared as well as you can, and then set it out of your mind. You have no control over what happens next, nor can you anticipate what the search committee will decide.

As frustrating as it may be for job candidates (which I appreciate, as I was one for seven years!), this response sounds broadly right to me, both as a former job-candidate and (now) as a search committee members. As a job-candidate, my judgment of how my interviews went seemed to bear little (if any) correlation to whether I got a fly-out. Sometimes I thought I bombed an interview but got a fly-out, whereas in other cases I was sure that I "killed it" in the interview only to get a PFO. To me as a candidate, this seemed rather baffling. However, now that I've served on like five search committees, it makes more sense to me. Let me explain.

Designing good PowerPoints?

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

I wondered if anyone in the discipline might be willing to share tips on designing powerpoint presentations. Or maybe even some templates or ideas for color or font schemes. I have always been aesthetically-challenged and while I understand the very basics—like don't fill the slide with a wall of text—I have always felt at a disadvantage here. Perhaps there are even some disciplinary norms specific to philosophy which I am missing. I would really benefit from any and all tips!

Good query! Me? I like to keep things relatively clean and simple. Although I recently started using title slide templates, for the most part I just use solid backgrounds (white or black) and sans serif fonts (e.g. Calibri) for easy reading. I also like to strategically use colored fonts for key terms and phrases to 'pop out'.

As an illustration, here's a copy of the précis I gave of my 2020 book, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality, in an author meets critics session at last year's Eastern APA. I'm not sure if my powerpoint style is everyone's cup of tea, but I've generally received positive feedback. What about you all? Any tips on designing a good PowerPoint? Feel free to share slides of your own to illustrate!

In-person v. Zoom 'flyouts'?

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

I've attended two first-round interviews so far, and both said the final round will be physical flyouts. I understand that this is the pre-pandemic norm in the US. I will do my best to fly into the US if I happen to get into the final round. Just would have preferred to have all things done online, to make things easier for me, less costly for everyone, and avoid unnecessary risks.

Another job candidate then added:

I agree with @job candidate. I live in a country where getting in and out during the pandemic involves a lot of bureaucratic hoops. And there's the always looming worry that borders will be shut while I'm on a flyout. This is a pretty big risk to take, in addition to health risks and costs of flying.

This is an interesting issue, as well as (obviously) a moral and public health issue. My understanding is that some universities in the US are still doing 'Zoom flyouts', whereas others have moved back to in-person ones. My general sense is also that these sorts of things tend to be dictated not by departments but by upper-administration (e.g. the Provost). So, I'm not sure that in many cases, much can be done here. But I do wonder whether it might make sense for overseas candidates to ask departments that request a physical fly-out if they would be willing to do a virtual one. What do you all think? Do any job-candidates or search committee members have any helpful experiences or insights to share here?

Updating search committees w/publications?

On Twitter, a philosopher asks:

Is it still relatively common practice/a good idea to email *every* job that you're still plausibly in contention for if you get a paper accepted that was previously listed as 'under review' in your cover letter? Is this advice at all department/program-specific, though? E.g., what Harvard might find 'desperate', a smaller state school/R2 might find appealing?

Good questions! Back when I was on the market, I seem to recall it being fairly standard to update committees with things like this. However, I don't know whether it is still something that candidates do or how well it comes off (does a new publication ever make a real difference with search committees?). What do you all think? It might be good to hear from candidates and (especially) search committee members here. Any helpful insights to share? Does the kind of school (R1, R2, SLAC, etc.) make any difference as to what to do?

Editorial experience and the market?

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

1. How do job committees view being an editorial assistant of a journal? For example, suppose that as a grad student you could serve as the editorial assistant for a top 20 journal, or perhaps an Oxford Studies in XYZ. But if you do so, you'll lose out some teaching experience. How will job committees view this?

2. How do job committees view being being a guest editor of a special issue?

My sense is that these kinds of things probably make very little difference to search committees, if any. At least in my experience, search committees care about research and teaching far more than they do about service--and I don't think that being a guest editor of a special issue counts for much in terms of research. The real career benefit of editing, I think, is probably networking (that is, getting to know and develop relationships with people in the profession--which can be a real benefit). But, if I were a grad student looking to be as competitive on the market as possible, (1) and (2) aren't the kinds of things that I would focus on, particularly if they distract from research or teaching. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Incomplete job applications?

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

I have a question that might have an obvious answer. I applied for a job in September, like two months ahead of the deadline. I realized after the deadline that I forgot to include a CV. I inquired to the search chair and was told they searched for contact information to contact me so I could supply the CV but they couldn't find my contact info in my dossier, so my file was never considered because of my lack of a CV.

Now, I get that its my responsibility to double check my app for completeness. But I also a bit surprised at the explanation--they couldn't find a way to contact me? My email is probably available in 30 seconds through a google search. Anyways, I get that is not the responsibility of a search committee with so many applicants but this struck me as kind of an odd explanation.

Thoughts on whether a search committee has any kind of obligation to try and inform applicants of incompleteness in their app and does that fall entirely on the applicant?

Interesting question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think, particularly members of search committees. I wonder whether there may be some kind of HR-related answer, such as that the committee has to evaluate candidates on the basis of what is submitted in an online application system, such that the committee cannot consider applicants who don't correctly submit all of the materials online. Anyone have any insights here?

Good public philosophy venues vs. ones to avoid?

Earlier this week, we discussed how public philosophy is perceived on the job-market. Perhaps surprisingly (to some of us, at least), most commenters seemed to think that public philosophy is a positive, at least if a candidate has a good record of peer-reviewed academic publications. As a follow-up to that discussion, I'd like to run a thread on these questions raised in our newest "how can we help you?" thread:

How are magazines like "Philosophy Now" viewed in the profession? Or others, like Aeon, Nautilus or The Conversation? Is there a ranking of prestige among these kinds of venues in philosophy? Ones that are good to publish in, or ones to avoid?

On occasion I peruse such magazines, however I mostly ask because I see people sometimes list articles they've published in these kinds of magazines as "publications" on their CVs. That strikes me as odd, and something one ought not do, (right??) - at least without making it very clear the publications are pop-pieces that aren't peer-reviewed.

Point being, I'm on the job market now and I'm curious how much these kinds of publications are worth on a CV, and how they should be listed.

I'm curious too! Which public philosophy venues are particularly good to publish in (or, at least, are likely to be perceived that way)? What about places to avoid? Why?

Nominations for prizes?

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

I sometimes see 'calls for nominations' for certain prizes, e.g. the APA Article Prize. I have no idea what the norms are for these. Is it acceptable to suggest to someone that they nominate you for the prize? If so, would you only ask someone like your supervisor who knows you well and has a stake in your success, or could you also ask someone you don't know that well but who might appreciate your work? Or, is the idea really that a nominator just nominates someone whose work they appreciate, without any prior discussion?

Good questions, and I don't know the answers. What do you all think?

Insights on jobs outside of the US?

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

I'm wondering if anyone has ideas and advice about applying for jobs outside of the US. First, might an American PhD be an advantage for a candidate applying to, let's say, Eastern Europe? Second, should I be competent in what is happening in that country philosophically, or is it enough if I just specialize in my area? Third, how is the academic job market in other places in the world? Is it more difficult or easier to find a job elsewhere?

These are very good questions. Another reader, Qiu Lin, submitted the following reply:

While I do not have full answer to your questions, I do learn from my China-based scholar friends that many universities in mainland China do not post job ads openly, so you do need to ask people already working in their departments whether they are hiring this year. It is generally easier to obtain a professorship in China than in the U.S, as many Chinese institutions are trying to become more "internationalized" by recruiting Ph.D from non-Chinese departments. Feel free to email me if you'd like more info!

I also recall that this site is home to several informative posts about doing philosophy outside the U.S -- a quick search should take you there.

Indeed, I think our series, The Cocoon Goes Global, might contain some helpful insights. But I'd love to hear from readers. Is having an American PhD an advantage or disadvantage in international academic job markets? Which ones, and why? 

Refereeing papers that are critical of you?

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

I was recently asked to review a paper that engages with some of my work. Since the journal asking for the review made the manuscript available to me, I was able to look it over before agreeing. I quickly discovered that the paper is very critical of one of my papers, and that it also includes a number of serious mischaracterizations and misunderstandings of my arguments (which I found very irritating). On the one hand, I feel the urge to accept the review request so that I can correct these mischaracterizations. On the other, I know that I am not a neutral party in this matter, and so I am also somewhat inclined to decline the review on account of my obvious bias. What do other people do when they encounter this kind of situation? Is it better to decline on account of my bias, or to accept on the grounds that I am an authority when it comes to what I say in my own papers?

These are very good questions. From what I've heard elsewhere on social media, my impression is that editors ask targets of critiques to referee papers fairly often. Further, in one way, this sort of seems like a good practice--for the journal has an interest in publishing good papers, and if anyone is well-placed to prevent mischaracterizations, then it is presumably the author being critiqued. On the other hand, it does (as the OP notes) introduce a kind of conflict of interest into the review process. After all, if anyone has an interest in not being embarrassed or their arguments disproven, it is the author whose work is being critiqued. So, I wonder whether editors have a way of spotting this. When editors receive a review from an author whose work is being critiqued, do they subject it to especially careful scrutiny, reading the paper for themselves to determine whether the referee's review is fair? 

I'm really curious to hear what readers think of this practice, as well as from editors--and on whether the OP should accept the referee assignment. What do you all think? 

Will journals consider significantly revised versions of rejected papers?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an early career philosopher asks:

How different does a paper have to be from its earlier incarnation for it to be acceptable to submit it to a journal that rejected the earlier incarnation?

More concretely: I have been re-writing a paper that was rejected from a generalist journal but with encouraging comments from two referees and the area editor. The new version has a very similar fundamental point as the old version. But the main claim is formulated differently, the argument is a bit different, the paper is shorter, with a different structure and the writing itself is all completely new, no copy-pasta. Will the journal(s) that rejected its predecessor consider my new version? Might they even send it to the same referees?
Also, is the answer affected by whether or not I change the title?

These are good questions, and I'm really curious to hear what everyone thinks. A late-career philosopher submitted the following reply:

Just send the paper to another journal. I once was asked to referee a paper that was resubmitted with a different title to the same journal. I was so angry. Having agreed to referee it, and discovering it was a revised paper I had seen before, I then retracted my offer to review it. Just just delayed the whole process for the author and journal. But I was done with that paper, and felt tricked!

My own sense is that it's probably best to move on to other journals. But, for all that, I'm curious to hear from authors and editors. For authors, have you ever tried doing what the OP describes? What was the result? And for editors: what do you think about this kind of case?

Approaching people for recommendation letters

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

I wondered if anyone had any advice or strategies regarding when and how to ask senior members of the profession for letters of recommendation. There are a few such people whom I know well and who I know think very well of me as a philosopher but haven't read much, or any, of my work. I feel bad asking them for recommendations since it seems like I presume that to write a good letter they would have to get to know my written work, and so it seems like a much bigger ask than simply writing a letter (which is already not a significant ask!). I would also hugely appreciate any general strategies for approaching people. In general I am not such a confident person, and in particular I am really concerned that those I ask would think that I had an ulterior motive in building relationships.

This is a good query, and having been in Sam's position, I expect many other readers may be in a similar position too. One reader submitted the following reply:

Sam I think you misunderstand letters. No one should be writing a letter for you if they have not read your work. They cannot say anything worth including in an application, unless they have read your work. So it is hard for me to understand what you mean when you say such people think very well of you as a philosopher.

However, this doesn't seem to be what Sam is saying. Sam seems to recognize that to write a good letter, a letter-writer will presumably need to have read his work. Sam just seems to be (quite reasonably) concerned with asking someone who hasn't read his work to write a letter because that would require the person to actually sit down and read his work--which is a lot to ask! (Also, as an aside, there are plausible grounds for someone to think highly of you without reading your work: you may have had good philosophical conversations with them, they may have attended a talk of yours and complimented you on your presented paper, etc.). Anyway, bearing all of this in mind--namely, that Sam's concern is about coming across poorly in asking someone who hasn't read his work to write a letter--I think Sam's query is a very good one.

Asking for interview feedback?

In our job-market discussion thread, a reader asks:

Do interviewees usually ask for feedback on their performance from search committee members after they've been ultimately rejected? And if so, what is the best way to do this?

These are good questions. Another reader, Andy, responded:

It can be helpful to ask for feedback. What you get can vary a lot. I have had one line of just "it was a strong field" all the way to the chair of the search committee organising a 30 minute zoom meeting with me to give feedback. I know others who have had similar experiences. I think it is usually worth asking (unless you just got a really bad vibe at the interview).

I'm curious to hear from other job-candidates. If you have asked for interview feedback, have you received helpful responses? Also, for search committee members: what do you think of candidates asking for feedback? Is there a best way to do so?

When to fix errors in an accepted manuscript?

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

I recently got a paper accepted for publication, and the editor sent my manuscript to the typesetting office. Since then, I noticed a few typos and minor mistakes that I had somehow missed until now (and so did my reviewers). Since I still have not received the proofs, do you think it is all right to contact the editor and let them know I would like to fix these mistakes? Or is it already too late for that?

A couple of readers submitted responses. An Editor writes:

The time to fix this is in the proofs. When you get your proofs read them with care. There is a chance that some of the mistakes will be caught in the proof stage, by others involved. But if they are not you will get a chance. Further, as an editor of a journal, I read the proofs as well, and catch yet-uncaught errors. But wait for the proofs.

Mike Titelbaum added:

Presumably once the piece is typeset they will send you proofs. Are the typos minor enough that you could fix them in the proof-correction stage?

It seems to me that Mike's question here is potentially important. One should ordinarily not make significant substantive changes to a final manuscript without running them by the Editor, right? But this doesn't sound like what the OP is describing. If it's just a matter of a few typos here and there, that's what proofs are for fixing!

How to get asked to referee?

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

How can I get papers to referee? Where to start? I am a junior researcher with a few publications, but not from EU or USA, and without much of a network. Any advices?

Several readers submitted replies. Michelle wrote:

[I]f the journals you are interested in refereeing for use Manuscript central or similar then create a profile and add you keywords. When the editor looks for reviewers you'll show up in the search. You can also email the journal and ask to be added to the reviewer list I imagine.

And Ref wrote:

You are less likely to be asked to referee for journal that you have not published in. So it is crucial that you publish in good places, if you want to referee paper for journals. I have refereed over 170 papers, many for leading journals in my sub-field - I am not junior. But that is largely because I have published in these journals (I also have three books with a leading press). Further, once you start refereeing, it helps if you are effective at getting useful reports in to the editor in a timely fashion. No kidding, most of the time I get my report in within 5 days of agreeing to referee the paper. Further, I write my reports for the editors - I given them a professional assessment of the paper, and provide justifications for my evaluation.

These both seem like good suggestions, though for what it is worth, I was asked to referee for a number of good journals early in my career before publishing all that much. What do you all think?

Contacting EICs in peer-review delays?

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

A question about journal etiquette. I have a paper that has been under review at a journal for nine months. For the past two months, I have not been able to get any response from the managing editor about the status of my paper. My question is: is it ok to write to one of the chief editors of the journal about this? Also, the journal is triple-blind, but as far as I understand that applies to the area editor who is handling the submission.

Good question! Another reader submitted the following reply:

I got a paper off the backlog at [redacted], where it had been stuck for nine months with no response from the ME, by emailing someone from the editorial board. I tried the chief editor first, but they had not responsive either. But the editorial board member was very apologetic and got me a decision in a week. Extreme times call for extreme measures, I think. My only caveat: be extra polite if the CE works in your area or it's a journal you need to publish in at some point (I purposely chose a board member as far removed from my area as possible).

I'm curious what other readers think. Do any of you have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

How to know if you're a good referee?

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

I referee more and more for journals, and there is this question at the back of my head everytime I send a report: How do I know if I do a good job as a referee? Or: What are good signs that you do a good/bad job as a referee?

A bit of context: When I send my reviews to editors, I usually also send them a message saying "if you need more information, or if my report is unclear, please let me know". I never hear back from the editors. When authors get an R&R, they are not dismissive of my comments, but this is hardly good evidence (as an author, being nice is part of the game!). We've all had experiences with bad referees. How am I supposed to know I'm not one of them? Maybe getting new invitations to referee from the same editors is a good sign. But perhaps they don't even keep track of this.

Good questions! In my experience, one of the best indications of one's performance as referee are how one's reports compare to other referees' reports. First, some journals have the (very good) practice of sharing all referee reports when an editorial decision is rendered not only with the author, but with other reviewers. As a reviewer, I've often found this to be very eye opening. On some occasions, I've seen that my worries were shared by other referees--which gave me some independent evidence that I had raised the right concerns about the paper. On other occasions, my reports seemed better than the other reports, giving more detailed feedback. However, on still other (thankfully rare) occasions, other reports led me to wonder whether I did a good job with my report (as they either understood something in the paper better than I did, etc.). For these reasons, I think the practice of journals sharing referee reports with all of a paper's referees is a great practice, and I only wish more journals did it (as in my experience, very few do). Finally, of course, sometimes journals share other referees' comments (or the author's reply to them) when authors submit revised papers for revise-and-resubmit verdicts. I find this to be really helpful for the same reasons. Other than this, though, my sense is that all one really has to go by is one's own internal sense of whether one is doing a good job.

What do you all think? What indications do you think a referee can have that they are doing a good job? And, are there things that journals should do in order to give one a clearer picture of how good of a job one is doing?

Norms for applying to TT jobs

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

I have a question about norms around applying for tenure-track jobs. From talking to professors, I've heard of two basic views (which I'm sure admit of gradation). On the one hand, I've been told that I should not apply to any job if it is not the case that, were they to be the only job offer I received, I would definitely take it. In other words, according to this restrictive view, applying to a job basically commits one to accepting an offer (unless one rejects it to accept another offer).

According to other professors, it's acceptable to apply to jobs even if it's not the case that, were it to be your only job offer, you would accept it. This view takes a much more permissive perspective on applying and learning about jobs along the way.

I'd rather take the permissive view, but I also don't want to seem like a nube. More importantly, if it's a norm violation to interview for a job and then decide that it's not right for me (even if I don't have other offers), then I don't want to do that! I have a good idea of how the non-academic job market work, but I also accept that there may be special considerations in the academic world (such as paying for fly-outs, etc).

This is an interesting query. Another reader submitted the following response:

[T]he restrictive view is absurd. You should apply to any job you feel like applying to. You will create only marginally more work for the people on the committee. But either your file is worth looking at or it isn't. If it isn't, you won't have wasted much of their time. It if is, then you haven't wasted their time at all. In either case, you've done no wrong. And they're being paid to read your application. Why apply to a job that you *know* you won't take? Negotiating leverage for other jobs. As a matter of policy at many instituions (my own, my former employer...), a department chair or dean can offer the choicest goodies (extended sabbaticals, spousal hiring, salary beyond your pay scale, etc...) only if you have a second offer. The market thus incentivizes applying to jobs that you will not accept. It's a collective action problem, but as a job-seeker, let the better-off people forgo self-interest to solve the problem. Look out for you. I can only imagine one of your competitors recommended the restricted view to you. That person isn't looking out for you.

My own thoughts are roughly this: I don't know how you can know with any confidence that you will accept a job before applying. Why? Well, there is so much that you can learn in the interviewing process, including the on-campus visit (if you get one). You may or may not gel with people in the first-round interview or on campus interview. You might find that the university's culture and norms don't quite fit your expectations. You might find during the on-campus visit that you wouldn't like living in the city or region. And so on. I was always told by my mentors that the search process is a 'two-way street' in which search committees are trying to figure out whether they should hire you, and for you in turn figure out whether the place is a good fit for you. Of course, you probably have some idea of these things before applying--but this at most seems to me to support the 'permissive view' in the OP. So, my thoughts are: if there's any realistic possibility you would accept the job, apply. The only thing that seems to me morally dicey is applying to jobs you are certain (or near certain) you would not accept. That seems to me to not only waste a committee's time, but also harm other candidates who would (or might) accept the job were it offered to them.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Incomplete grades & temporary faculty

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

How should people with temporary positions deal with teaching demands that extend beyond a particular course’s contract? Suppose I am contracted to teach PHIL 101 in the Fall term, and there is a student who (for legitimate reasons) needs to defer some of their term work until the following term. My inclination is just mark the stuff, since I’m invested in my students. But I also feel like there is something exploitative in having that even minor burden fall to temp workers.

This is a really good question. I imagine there are a few different situations where this can arise. First, one could be in a temporary postdoc or visiting position, and then leave for another institution before the student is able to finish the work they need to finish the Incomplete. Alternatively, one could be in a part-time adjunct position where a student needs to finish up work after the course of your contract is over (i.e. during the summer months). I agree that there seems to be something really unfair about expecting people who are no longer getting paid for a course to have to do substantial amounts of work like this after the term is over (or after they have left the university for another institution). But I also imagine that, insofar as Incompletes are covered in faculty handbooks and the like, they are nevertheless considered by the institution to fall under the terms of your contract. So unfortunately, I'm not sure what to advise other than making things as easy on oneself as possible. Perhaps departments could/should come up with policies to have full-time faculty do this kind of work (though I'm not sure whether that would fly with administrators). What do you all think? 

Promoting new publications?

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

I am an early-career philosopher who recently got published in a highly ranked journal. Given that I am pretty much unknown in the field, I wonder what would be some good ways to promote my publication?

Sharing on social media and posting a pre-print on PhilPapers are some obvious things I plan to do. I was also considering sending the paper directly to people in my field. However, I am not sure whether this is a good idea or it might backfire. In any case, I would be really glad to hear the thoughts of more experienced philosophers on this matter.

Interesting question! One reader submitted the following reply:

I would encourage you to send the paper to people, BUT only to those whose work you engage with in the paper. When someone I do not know sends me a paper on something I write on, but it does not engage my work, I wonder what they are up to. I am a busy person. I have enough to read. But I have send my work to people I have discussed, and it has been worth it.

I guess I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I've had people send me papers of theirs, and I normally do take a look to see if the paper interests me. I also have sent people papers of mine on relatively rare occasions where we are working on similar stuff and I think they might find it interesting. On the other, I guess sending one's papers to a bunch of people seems to me a bit 'salesperson-ish', and I suppose I've always thought that the best way for one's work to get attention is to just keep publishing good stuff. Finally, though, I guess I doubt there is much risk in sending people your paper. At worst, some people might give you a subtle brush-off, as it were. So, I don't know. What do you all think? 

'X and philosophy' books

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

I was wondering what people think about contributed chapters to "X and philosophy" books. Are they just considered a 'popular publication' or are they closer to a contributed chapter to an edited volume? Are they peer reviewed in any serious sense?

Good questions! I contributed a chapter a few years ago to Westworld and Philosophy, a book in Blackwell's Philosophy & Pop Culture Series. I enjoyed writing the piece a great deal, and it was cool to have the piece featured on a major fan site--and in addition to being fun to write, I think it's good for our discipline to be engaged in public philosophy and outreach like this. Obviously, given that the series is written for the general public, the piece wasn't technical or very advanced. But I do recall it being peer-reviewed, going through one round of minor revisions.

As for "what people think" of pieces like this, my sense is: it depends. Presumably, hiring and tenure committees at R1's aren't going to assign much (or any?) weight to these pieces, but I know second-hand that people at teaching-oriented colleges and universities--including tenure committees and (especially) administrators--love stuff like this. Remember, at teaching-oriented places, the primary focus is on students. More down-to-earth, popular-facing pieces like these can not only interest students in our disciplines, but also be featured in college magazines for parents, alumni, and donors--particularly if and when the pieces are featured various places online, increasing the university's visibility. In terms of how they should be listed on a CV, I'm not sure there is a clear-cut answer. On the one hand, my experience is that they are peer-reviewed, and often 'do real philosophy.' On the other hand, they are pitched toward a popular audience and presumably not reviewed with the same kind of rigor as more professional-facing work does. 

What do you all think? How do you view these pieces, and how do you think they should be listed on a CV?

 

How are R&Rs handled?

(Update: comments now open!)

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

When I re-submit a revised manuscript to a journal after an R-and-R decision, will they go to the editor first, or will they be sent out directly to the reviewers? I ask because I think I should clear something I've done in the revisions with the editor (a slight compromise of anonymity) before the reviewers see it.

Good question. My sense is that all submissions (both initial submissions and R&Rs) go to editors first, and then the editor decides whether to send it out to review, and if so, to whom. Sometimes (e.g. for an R&R with 'minor revisions'), editors may not send out an R&R to reviewers at all, deciding for themselves that you have adequately addressed the reviewers' concerns. Other times, the editor may send out the R&R to some of the reviewers but not others (my sense is that this can happen if one referee initially submitted an incompetent or unfair review: an editor might not be interested in hearing that referee's opinion again). Finally, sometimes editors may send out the R&R to all of the previous reviewers, or even (sigh) a new reviewer, if one of the original reviewers is unavailable. I guess my only concern about the OP is their note that they are interested in "clearing something" with the editor that might involve a "slight compromise of anonymity." If the journal is triple-anonymized (so that editors do not know the author's identity), this seems to me to be problematic. Although I can understand situations where this might be tempting (such as a reviewer misinterpreting some of the author's previously published work cited in the paper!), authors should still respect anonymous review in submissions and resubmissions, I think. But perhaps the OP can chime in and provide further context in the comments section.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. What are yours? 

Listing job talks on a CV?

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

May/should I list (research) job talks under the 'presentations' section on my CV? Or is that cheating?

Good question, and I'm curious to hear from readers, especially those who have served on search committees. Here are my thoughts...

My guess is that it will be pretty obvious which talks are job talks, and that listing them could make one look particularly desirable. At the same time, there is one equally obvious way that this could backfire: namely, by scaring search committees away at 'less desirable' institutions, making them think "we'll never get this candidate to work here. Interviewing them or flying them out for an on-campus visit may be a waste of time." These are not, I think, idle concerns. My experience is that search committees can worry a lot not only about perceived "flight risks", but also about doing a failed search. For example, at some institutions, the administration will only fund 2 or 3 on campus interviews. If all of the candidates who are flown out turn down the job, it's a failed search, and no one may be hired. Which is really bad for the hiring department, not only because of wasted time and energy, but also because there is no guarantee the search will be renewed the next year. 

Long story short, it seems to me that listing job talks on a CV are a double-edged sword. Yes, they can make you look highly desired by other institutions, but that can (at least in principle) backfire in a really serious way. So, I guess I might only recommend it for candidates who are competitive for jobs at top research departments, where this sort of thing is likely to only be perceived as a positive.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Learning how not to rely on one's PhD advisor

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

I don't think I'm alone in this, and I'm looking for advice from those who've gone through it or something like it.

I have an excellent relationship with my advisor. With his guidance, my mediocre ideas become significantly less mediocre, and even, on occasion, quite interesting. I've worked with other professors and, to be honest, we're on the same wavelength in ways that I haven't experienced with others.

While I'm incredibly grateful to be working with them, I'm also a bit anxious about what's to come. At some point, I'll move on, ideally to a job, and it will be less and less appropriate for me to lean on my advisor to lift up my work and make it more intelligible. What can I do to prepare for this? Should I just hold on as long as possible? Will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?

These are very good questions. Timmy J. submitted the following response:

My own adviser told me that most of the point of grad school is to get voices in your head. You get your adviser’s voice is your head. You get some of your cohortmate’s voices in your head. Maybe you get frege or Kant or whoever’s voice in your head. Then you leave but the voices stay and some large portion of the help they could give before they can still give later, albeit in a disembodied way. Yeah yeah it’s weird and mystical and whatever. But it sorta helps me deal, and maybe it’ll help you too.

This seems right to me (I still bear in mind many lessons that I learned from my advisor). However, I don't think they are the only way to handle the OP's situation--and I also think it can be critical to develop one's own voice, as it were, becoming one's 'own philosopher' (there are, for example, some preconceptions about research that I was taught in graduate school that I now firmly reject). In any case, what other strategies are there? One strategy that I have seen is for people to slowly wean themselves off of their advisor, staying in close contact with them for their first few years out of graduate school, meeting with them via Zoom, sharing work, etc. My sense is that this can work if one's advisor is a caring and conscientious person, particularly given that advisors can want their former students to succeed. Not all advisors are like this, however--and so, one might very well find oneself 'ripped away' from being able to rely on them. In that case, my sense is that one's situation can be very much akin to being thrown into the deep end of a pool and simply having to learn how to swim. 

Long story short, I don't think there's just one way to answer the OP's questions. I think a lot depends on you (are you 'naturally independent' or someone who really needs support networks?), on your advisor (are they willing to stay in close contact and be helpful once you graduate?), and on context (is your first job out of graduate school in a large research department or small department with high teaching loads?). Because things can differ so much, I'm very curious to hear from readers. How did you handle the kinds of issues the OP asks about? Did your strategy work well or not?

Finally, I do want to say a few things about the OP's third and final question: "will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?". My sense is that you probably will. My own advisor once told me in graduate school that at some point, one undergoes a transformation of sorts. You begin to realize that, whereas for your entire academic career as a student, you had to satisfy your professors with your work, now the main person you need to satisfy is yourself. Sure, you need to convince referees to publish your work. But, at some point, you'll get a sense of how to do that while being the kind of philosopher you want to be. And, in my experience, it can be a really wonderful experience, generating not only a kind of confidence in your work, but indeed, a kind of confidence that doesn't depend so much on others for validation (which, I think, can be a really liberating experience). But again, this is just my experience. What's yours?

Indicating post-dissertation research on a CV?

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

I have a separate section on my CV for papers under review. I was wondering whether it's a good idea to highlight which of these papers are derived from my PhD thesis, and which ones are not? I can imagine it's helpful if a search committee sees that about half of my papers under reviews aren't thesis chapters, meaning that I am (hopefully) capable of producing further non-thesis research. On the other hand, it also somehow feels as if I define myself by my thesis, especially as I am currently in a postdoc position. I would appreciate some input on this!

Good question. Another reader submitted the following response:

You are way over thinking things. These papers are JUST under review. They are not publications - it matters not whether you wrote them as part of your dissertation or as part of a new project. That is something you can talk about, if you get an interview, but even then it does not matter.

I half-agree with this response. Speaking as a search committee member, I think it can matter whether a candidate has a robust research program beyond the dissertation. Search committee members can want to know whether candidates are likely to publish enough to get tenure, and at least typically, that requires publishing articles beyond the dissertation. So, I think it is a good idea for a CV to show that the candidate has such a research program. I just don't think the OP needs to explicitly indicate this in their CV. This is because it is usually pretty easy to tell, just by looking at the candidate's dissertation title and/or research statement, what is a part of their dissertation, and what's not. So, that's what I would do: just list the papers they have published and under review, and let the reader infer what goes beyond the dissertation.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Reference info in online applications

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

I'm currently in the process of filling out job ads. Many places require applicants to fill out online forms. These forms usually ask for reference contact info such as an email address and phone numbers. If you're using a third party document service like interfolio are you supposed to enter the "send.Referee" emails addresses that interfolio provides as the "contact email" for your references? Or should you enter the email addresses of the references? I've been told that it's the former, but in some cases, the job ads suggest that your references will be contacted directly and that makes me wonder if entering the interfolio address will suffice. Of course, emails for references are standardly found on our CV's, too. But I don't want to mess up these forms. Any help would be appreciated.

Good question. I don't know how search committees approach this stuff, but I suspect that many of those online forms that say that references will be "contacted directly" involve automated emails to letter writers. Since it can be a real pain for letter writers to continually upload letters (particularly if they have written letters for multiple candidates applying to many different jobs), I suspect the thing to do here is to put in the Interfolio link whenever possible, just to save your letters writers time and energy. I highly doubt much turns on it for search committee members. Are they really going to look askance at a candidate who submits a letter this way? It's hard for me to see how, especially if the letter writers' direct contact info is listed in the candidate's CV. But perhaps I'm wrong about this. Any search committee members able to weigh in?

Tips for (pre-tenure) research leave?

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

I am newish assistant professor at a school with a medium-level teaching load, where I am fortunate to get a guaranteed pre-tenure research leave (one semester at full salary or two semesters at reduced salary). I would love to hear tips from readers about how to make the best use of this time. Here are some specific questions. Where might I look for funding to support the longer leave? And then, assuming I can swing that financially, what are the advantages and disadvantages of staying put vs. going somewhere else as a visiting scholar? At present I am slowly recovering from burnout related to making a number of demanding life transitions during the pandemic and I am instinctively resistant to any more upheaval. But I fear I might regret not taking the opportunity to travel, especially since I am not an a research-intensive institution and do not have much local accountability for my scholarship.

Good questions! As far as funding is concerned, visiting fellowships seem to me to be one obvious answer--but as the OP notes, moving for a fellowship could involve quite a bit of upheaval (moving to a new place). So, it could be good to hear from visiting fellows/scholars whether it is worth it. Grants are another obvious source of funding, though they can take a lot of time to apply for and be hard to get. So, I'm not sure what to recommend here, especially given that I've never had a research leave myself. Finally, in terms of making the best use of one's time, I guess I expect that a lot turns here on how one works best--but, in my case, I find it's usually a good idea to have an idea of which projects I want to write on before I have time set aside for it. My guess is that one way to "waste" a research leave is not to have any good idea what to work on, and then spend most of the leave reading and trying to come up with ideas. So, I guess I'd say: have a clear picture of which projects you want to work on and (roughly) how you think the projects should go. Then spend the research leave focusing on writing, etc.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? For obvious reasons, it would be great to hear tips from people who have had research leaves themselves (both tips on things to do, but also potentially things to avoid!). 

Discussing grad school with undergrads

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

I have been advising an undergraduate senior thesis for several months now, for a student who expressed early on that they were interested in applying to a philosophy PhD. I'm becoming increasingly certain that they don't yet have the skills or preparation to be accepted into a program this year (ideas can sometimes be good but writing quality not so much, etc.), especially the mostly top-10 programs they seem set on applying to. I'm early-career at a PGR-ranked but not top department, certainly not "famous" enough for my letter to have much clout, which makes me even more pessimistic about the student's chances. I've talked with the student multiple times about how competitive (and random) the PhD process is, to consider some MA programs seriously (which I think would be a really good step for them before a PhD anyway), and have a backup plan if things don't work out this year. But I'm wondering whether I'm still not being straightforward enough and should give a little more tough love. On the other hand, I've never sat on a grad admissions committee, and maybe my pessimism is misplaced and harmful. Should my role be to build up the student's confidence, based on their stated application goals? Or would it be better to let them know very clearly that I think they have a minuscule change of getting in?

These are really good and (I think) difficult questions. On this case, I guess I feel torn between the following two responses: (1) honestly telling the student you don't feel they are quite ready for a PhD program and encouraging them to pursue an MA to better prepare themselves, or (2) support them in applying to PhD programs but strongly encourage them to apply to MA programs, explaining to them that many (most?) students who pursue PhDs these days go to good MA programs first. I myself tend to "err on the side of tact", as my experience is that frank honesty sometimes can do more harm than good. But, that being said, I also understand the argument that we should be honest with students. So, I guess I'm inclined to say that either of these approaches may be legitimate, and honestly, if the student really isn't quite ready to get into a good PhD program, then my sense is that this will probably be reflected in their application results (i.e. them perhaps getting into a good MA program but not to any attractive PhD programs). So again, maybe the thing to do is to just encourage them to apply to both, and then give them good advice once they hear back on the places they get into. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Including graded work in a teaching portfolio?

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

I'm working on an application that has the following request in their add:

"In the requested teaching portfolio, we would like to see a statement of teaching philosophy that speaks specifically to a liberal arts context, student evaluations from previous courses taught, sample syllabi, samples of graded student work that demonstrate the sort of feedback that the candidate offers to students, and at least one letter of recommendation from someone who has conducted classroom visits and is familiar with the candidate’s positive impact on students."

I'm particularly concerned about the request for examples of graded work. (We can set aside for the moment how little regard this department has for the time and effort of applicants). Is it even legal to include examples of such graded work? Is it ethical? This strikes me as worrisome. Should I just suck it up and send it along, or would that be violating a legal or ethical requirement?

Interesting questions. I think the answer here is that it's legal, provided you suitably redact the work (deleting any student-identifying information). Assuming that is the OP's main ethical concern as well, I guess I don't see what is plausibly unethical about it. If there is no way to identify the student, then what is the ethical concern? Maybe I'm missing something here I'm not thinking of. Is the concern about requiring so much time and effort on behalf of applicants? Here too, I guess I'm not sure what the concern is. Allow me to explain.

To OnlyFans or Not to OnlyFans?

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

I am an early graduate student with two perhaps controversial questions, one more empirical and one normative. The first is: would it hurt (or even destroy) one’s chances on the job market if they were to pursue a part-time career in sex work while in grad school (specifically, starting an OnlyFans)? The second is: if yes, are such norms justified?

When I think of older academics on a search committee (lets broadly say “baby boomers,” particularly those with anti-porn sentiments), my intuitions tell me if someone were to find out it would likely be disqualifying. When I think of people like Amia Srinivasan and many younger philosophers, I feel like it might not be a big issue at all (but I’m really far from sure).

Finally, part of me is wondering whether I should even make decisions based on how they might affect my chances on the job market. If my chances of succeeding are already so low, part of me feels like I ought to just do what I want to do and hope for the best. Another part of me desperately wants to play the game perfectly and avoid any possible misstep, even though so many people who do this still get screwed over (I am at a top 20 university with decent placement, so getting a TT job is not completely off the table, just unlikely). In 4-5 years when I am on the job market, will I have regretted playing this game (or not)?

This a fascinating query, and I am curious to hear readers' answers to all three of the OP's questions:

1. Would it hurt (or even destroy) one’s chances on the job market?
2. If yes, are such norms justified?
3. In 4-5 years when I am on the job market, will [the OP] have regretted playing this game (or not)?

In answering/discussing them, I ask readers to focus on the professional issues involved: that is, on whether sex work (such as an OnlyFans page) would in fact hurt (or "even destroy") the OP's chances on the job-market, what the professional norms are here, and whether those norms are justified. In line with this blog's safe and supportive mission, I am going to require readers to refrain from 'sex-shaming', and I will not approve comments of that sort. For again, the OP is asking for professional advice, not commentary on their preferences, values, etc. Bearing this in mind, allow me to briefly share some thoughts, and then open things up for discussion.

R&Rs and journal word limits

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

I'm revising a paper (major revisions). The criticisms and comments I received are all incredibly useful. However, I cannot possibly address them all because of a strict word limit of the journal. What are your strategies in cases like this? Can you tell reviewers "your comments x, y, and z are useful, but I could only address x and y because of word limit" ? Should I tell the same thing to the editor?

Good questions! Personally, I think it's a bad idea to tell reviewers and editors that you can't address all of the reviewers' concerns--as that automatically gives the reviewers and editors reasons to reject the paper. Instead, my sense is that it's better to either (1) find a way to get under the word limit, or alternatively, (2) ask the editor(s) whether you can go above the journal's limit, and if so, by how much. But, my sense is that it's also a good idea to give (1) your very best attempt before attempting (2). That is, if I were in the OP's situation, I would revise the paper first, addressing all of the reviewers' concerns. Then I would spend a significant amount of time cutting as many unnecessary words as possible. Then, if after all of that, I can't get under the journal's limit, I would email the editor saying something like, "I have revised the paper, addressing all of the reviewers' comments, but even after a few weeks of trying to cut the paper down, I'm still X words the word limit. Is this okay?".

Postdoc or adjunct?

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

I have a question about deciding between whether to pursue a postdoc or teaching the year after finishing a PhD, with an eye to (hopefully) landing a TT or permanent job within a few years. What would be more competitive on a CV for TT jobs/future jobs in general: A 1-year full-time adjunct position or a 1-year postdoc? I have teaching experience already and fewer publications. My goal would be to get a permanent position at a teaching-focused university, but I know a postdoc will likely help improve my publications. Thanks for any advice!

Setting aside logistical issues (e.g. moving, etc.), this seems to be an easy one: do the postdoc. My experience is that a candidate's perceived trajectory matters. You want, if it at all possible, to have a full-time position--and the fact that the postdoc will enable you to continue publishing is a big deal. Also, if (as the OP notes) you already have plenty of teaching experience but not so many publications, the postdoc is definitely the way to go. Or so it seems to me. What do you all think? 

Summarizing student evaluations from different institutions?

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

How does one summarize raw quantitative data from teaching evaluations across different institutions and therefore different evaluative scales? Does one include one summary per institution in the teaching portfolio?

Good questions. Indeed, the most common approach that I've seen is to separate out quantitative summaries by institution. I've also heard that some people think it is bad to try to merge quantitative data from different institutions, both for technical reasons but also because it can be useful to search committee members to see clearly how the candidate's evaluations were at different institutions. So, I think separating things out is the way to go. But what do you all think?

How many papers do you abandon?

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

I'm interested to know how many unpublished, abandoned papers people have.

I'm 10 years post-PhD. My papers are in top-10, but not top-5 journals (think: Phil Quarterly, Phil Studies, Synthese, etc. not: Mind, Nous or Phil Review). I have two article-length papers that I worked on for a long time, presented in public, etc. but which never got accepted anywhere (probably a few more false starts that I decided I couldn't turn into full papers, but my question isn't about those).

I currently have two more papers I am periodically submitting, but which aren't resonating with referees. One got an R&R from Phil Studies, but I stuffed up the revision and it got rejected. It's been rejected from about 8 other journals too.

So I'm approaching 4 papers that look like they will end up on the scrapheap. How does this compare with others?

Interesting question, and I'm curious to hear from readers! How many papers do you abandon, compared to how many you write or publish? Here's my own answer...

What materials should hiring committees require?

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

Serious proposal: every job should only ever require a CV and Cover Letter.

Only request more documents at the short list stage.

Less work on the candidates and search committees.

Although this isn't exactly a question, it still implies a good query: namely, which materials should academic search committees require, and why? What do you all think? Here are a few quick thoughts in reply...

A job-market dilemma: teaching and having an affiliation, or publishing in a non-academic job?

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

What is more helpful in terms of landing a TT job - teaching experience and having an affiliation or publications?

Here's why I ask: I'm nearing the end of a year long research postdoc. My publication record is pretty decent, as is my teaching record (4 publications in good journals, multiple years of teaching different courses at 4 different institutions). I am, of course, applying to jobs now but I'm operating under the assumption that I'm not going to land anything. Assuming that's the case, I'm going to be faced with a choice. I can adjunct while trying to keep up with research, but if the future is like the past, the amount of teaching I'll need to take on to keep the lights on will almost guarantee that my research progress will come to a halt. Alternatively, I can take a non-academic job that pays reasonably well that would allow me to keep writing and trying to publish. But from the outside, that will look like I left philosophy. How much does being unaffiliated hurt you on the job market?

I realize the answer to this question likely depends on whether one is trying to land a job at a teaching school or a research school. However, I'm just trying to land any job I can get. I also realize that, ideally, I'd just teach and research. Unfortunately, adjuncting means taking on 6+ courses per semester at different institutions, commuting 400+ miles a week, not to mention while having no benefits. Under those circumstances, I just won't be very productive research-wise.

What's the best route to go with an eye to making myself as marketable as possible?

This is a really good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is. On the one hand, if the OP has a good publication record and teaching experience, then I don't see any clear reason why they shouldn't be competitive for jobs if they take a non-academic job and continue to publish. But, on the other hand, search committees don't always act as they should, and I could well imagine them being biased toward candidates who have an academic affiliation. So, I'm not sure what the best strategy here is for being competitive on the academic market. But I guess this leads to my main thought, which is that given how much the academic job market is like a lottery, maybe the thing to do here is not to wager on which of the two job-market strategies is likely to be the most effective (since it's really hard to know). Instead, maybe the thing to do is to pick whichever path forward offers the best immediate rewards, such as a good salary, benefits, and quality of life. This is sort of what another reader suggests in a follow-up comment:

Asking editors to send referees an updated paper?

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

I wonder whether it is considered permissible to send a revised version of a manuscript after it has already been sent to peer review.

Some background: I recently revised and resubmitted a manuscript to a journal, and the editor already sent it back to the reviewers. Since then, I noticed that I could significantly improve two paragraphs of the paper to elucidate a crucial principle for my argument. The changes I intend to do would not affect the conclusion but only make it clearer how I arrived there. I am worried that my paper might get rejected if the reviewers find these two paragraphs confusing.

Do you think it makes sense to contact the editor and ask I could reupload the paper in this kind of circumstances? If not, what would be my best course of action? Curious to hear what others in the field think of this or whether someone has done something similar.

This is an interesting question. I recently had an R&R under review at a journal that I had similar concerns about, but I did nothing and the paper was accepted. In retrospect, I think I was probably just being too self-critical--though I think it's understandable to be that way, given how high journal rejection rates are. So, I guess I'm inclined to think that if the OP's concern is merely that the two paragraphs "could be clearer", it may not be worth their while to do anything. It might be a different story, I think, if they found a fatal error or something--which could definitely be worth trying to do something about. But, in any case, if the reader is that concerned, I suppose it couldn't hurt to ask the editor. Or could it? I don't know. 

What do you all think?

Grappling with impostor syndrome?

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

I'm around midway through my PhD, and have been struggling more than I normally do with imposter syndrome. It's put a real damper on my ability to work. What's the point if I'm not going to do work that others would want to read? And why should I risk revealing how little I know?

I've also been pretty convinced by the cognitive scientist Barbara Sarnecka's analysis of imposter syndrome - found in her book, the Writing Workshop - not as the result of something going wrong on the side of the individual, but as the result of something going wrong in the environment. Those struggling with imposter syndrome aren't usually making bad inferences about their own abilities from good data, but good inferences from bad data. We overestimate the success of others, and so underestimate our own, because we're only ever told the success stories.

I'm wondering if anyone has advice on combatting this kind of bad data. I'm especially interested in what I, as a graduate student, can do about it.

I'm sorry to hear that this reader is struggling, but I'm glad they asked this question, as it's an important issue that I expect a lot of grad students and early career philosophers struggle with. We've talked about impostor syndrome a few times before on the blog, and in fact there were many times early in my career when I struggled with impostor syndrome myself--so I know how hard it can be. So, let me offer a few brief comments that I hope the OP may find helpful before opening things up for comments.