The Philosophers' Cocoon

How to list affiliation in a non-university job?

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

First, for some context, I recently accepted a job teaching philosophy (along with a few other subjects in the humanities) in a private high school.

Lately I've been considering submitting a few papers I've been working on to journals and conferences. In the process, however, I've been confronted with the question of what to list as my affiliation. Since finishing grad school, I've mostly been using "no affiliation" or "independent philosopher" for this kind of thing. Continuing to use that wouldn't exactly seem accurate now, since I'm now employed at a school. The only apparent alternative, I suppose, is using my new high school as an affiliation--but something about that makes me uneasy, too. Perhaps it's simply the fact that I've never seen anyone do this; to the extent that I can remember philosophers' listed affiliations, they've always been a college or university. Part of me wonders whether the very meaning that most people give to "affiliation" in this context restricts the word to institutions of higher education, such that listing a high school as one's affiliation would be considered a bit like listing, say, Costco (assuming one worked there), or a given elementary school, etc.

If I'm to be honest with myself, I suppose I also sense that there might be a certain stigma to listing a high school as one's affiliation--that others might sense that one isn't a "real" philosopher, that one's work isn't to be taken as seriously, etc. Perhaps that's what's ultimately making me feel uneasy (though arguably I shouldn't be bothered by others' thoughts in this way).

What I wanted to ask, then, was whether anyone has any thoughts on what I should list as my affiliation going forward.

This is an interesting question. My general sense (though it could be wrong) is that the prevailing convention is to list oneself as an 'independent scholar' in cases like this. But, even assuming this is right, whether this is a good convention is another story entirely--as the convention seems to presuppose that an affiliation is only worth listing in a journal if it is a university. Personally, I'd prefer to see 'non-traditional' affiliations (such as high schools, etc.) actually listed in cases like these--as I think it would be very interesting to know where such scholars work! But, on the other hand, I wonder whether (as the OP notes) it might work to the author's disadvantage. First, might journal editors discriminate against authors like the OP? Second, would journal readers? For example, would Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity have gotten the attention it did if Einstein listed 'Swiss Patent Office' as his affiliation? Or would many readers have written it off as a work of an amateur? 

What do readers think? It might be great to hear, in particular, from journal editors and independent scholars. What is the prevailing convention here? Would it hurt a scholar like the OP to list their actual (e.g. high school) affiliation rather than merely listing themselves as an independent scholar? 

Starting v. finishing papers?

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

I have questions about writing papers. Specifically:

how do I finish them?

does everyone else find them as difficult to finish as I do?

It has been five years since my Phd and have managed to publish some stuff that I am happy with. I have never found starting writing particularly onerous, and generally enjoying getting the first 80% down. But, I always find the last 20% –actually getting the thing into a submittable state takes me an enormous amount of time.

Right now, I have a more than 80% of a paper finished –but it has been at this stage for the last month despite me working on it pretty much every day.

I find that a paragraph that I need to fix/alter slightly/rewrite will lead to me needing to fix/alter/slightly/rewrite another part of the paper. And so on...

So, I guess a couple of things could be happening:

1. Many people go through something like this and it is just a normal part of finishing papers.

2. I am doing something wrong. perhaps I need to get ideas more clear in my head before I start writing?

Yeah, I think this is totally normal--or, at least, it's something that I struggle with too. I love drafting new papers. Finishing them, on the other hand, is the tricky part. It takes a ton of polishing, and this in my experience is the least fun and most difficult part to do. You constantly fiddle with things, insert and remove things, second-guess yourself, and so on. I currently have maybe ten papers like this that are 80-90% done, but which I'm finding it difficult to polish into the kind of shape that I'm happy enough with to submit. And what often happens is that I have an idea for a new paper, so I'll begin drafting that up because I find that more enjoyable (this is in part the reason why I have so many papers in the 'polish' stage). 

Maybe the OP and I are outliers in this regard, I don't know--but I suspect not. Any readers care to weigh in? And any tips for the OP to help them get to the finish line more quickly?

How many (outside) letters are optimal?

A reader writes in:

I have a couple of questions about getting job letters from people outside of your graduate program. 

First, when is it a good time to ask someone for a job letter? How well does a potential letter writer need to know you to write a sufficient letter? 

Second, I will likely have at least two external job letters when I go on the market. Is this enough or would more be better? How many letters does one need on the market?

Excellent questions. Here is how I replied:

I don’t think there’s a simple answer to the first question, as in my experience different people can have different standards for how well they think they should know you in order to write a good letter. So, here’s my suggestion: if you have some working relationship with the person and any reason to think the person knows your work and may think well of you as a philosopher, it doesn’t hurt to ask. The worst that can happen is that they say ‘no’—but the best that can happen is that they say ‘yes’ and write a good letter. I’ve had both happen to me, and while it’s disappointing when someone says ‘no’, the only way to get some ‘yes’ answers is to ask.

On the second question, I think two outside letters is more than enough, particularly for someone just coming out of graduate school. Indeed, given that many job application portals limit the number of letters that you can submit, there is such a thing as having ‘too many letters.’ I think four or five letters total (2 or 3 from your grad program, and likewise from outside) is probably optimal.

But these are just my thoughts. What do you all think?

Getting a visiting student post while ABD?

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

I have a question about the process of applying for becoming a visiting student in another university especially when you are in the dissertation phase. I am currently in a PhD program of one of the US universities and I am wondering how can I be a visiting student in another university (in the US) for awhile.

This is an excellent query. I seem to recall a grad student or two that I knew having done this, and it seemed to really be a boon to their career, as they were able to draw on the expertise of people outside of their home department, get good outside recommendation letters, network, and so on. However, I don't know much about the process. Although I could be totally wrong about this, I sort of suspect that you (and/or your dissertation supervisor) just need to approach a person or two at the department or two that you would like to visit to see if their department would be willing to have you.

But again, I am really just speculating here. Do any readers have experience with this? It might be great to hear both about the process of becoming a visiting student at the dissertation stage, and the costs and benefits of doing so! 

When (and how) to try to publish a dissertation?

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

For those who want to try and publish their dissertation as a monograph: what is the best time to start getting in touch with publishers? Once the thesis is starting to take shape, or when it is more or less finished/submitted, or only after the dissertation has passed the defence?

On the one hand, it seems that earlier = better, if only because the same time can otherwise be spent trying to publish individual chapters. On the other hand, the defence itself might provide valuable feedback, and publishers might not want to take a gamble on a dissertation that has not even passed yet!

Relatedly, suppose one plans to revise their dissertation to become more like a monograph, rather than a dissertation (i.e. include a gentler introduction, but leave out long literature reviews): should one do this *before* submitting the manuscript to a publisher, or is it fine to submit the dissertation 'as is' but with a (detailed) note in what ways one intends to change things? (I am thinking here of the initial 'proposal' stage, not the later 'review' stage, for which it seems sensible to submit an as-final-as-possible version).

These are excellent questions, and I am curious to hear what readers think. Here are a few quick thoughts...

Maintaining a (coherent) research program?

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

I'm 5 years post-PhD and have been publishing at a modest rate since then (about 1 article per year), and I'm starting to find it a bit onerous to keep track of my own research program. Now when I'm editing new drafts I find myself always uncovering thorny issues with subtle details of how the new paper fits in with my previous ones. I would love to hear if others have found effective ways to manage and streamline this part of the late-early-career writing process. I feel like I'm always having "Oh shit, I can't say that because..." moments fairly late in the game and then scrambling for a solution. I work in a so-called "core" analytic subfield, in case that's relevant.

Interesting query. I'm nearly 13 years (!) post-PhD now and have published quite a bit, and I haven't really encountered this difficulty. I guess I'm a bit puzzled by the OP's thought that they can't say something in a new paper because of something they have written before. Is their thought that everything they say across different papers must be entirely consistent? If so, I'm not sure that I think one needs to do that! Why not follow the arguments where they lead, publish things that are in tension with each other if that's where the arguments lead, and then perhaps explore and try to resolve those tensions in future work?

Pedagogical literature for philosophy?

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

I'm thinking about applying for a Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy (if you don't know about it see here: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/fellowship/fellowship) and for that I need to engage with the pedagogical literature. I've found plenty of literature on teaching at university in general. But I wonder if anyone here has recommendations for pedagogical literature that is specifically relevant to philosophy (or better yet, specifically addressed to philosophy lecturers).

I'm curious to hear recommendations too. I know of the journal Teaching Philosophy, but beyond that I don't have any specific recommendations. I'd love to hear from readers on particular books or articles they recommend!

When/where can one post preprints?

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

I recently had my first journal article accepted for publication. When can I put it on Philpapers and my personal website? Do I have to wait for official approval of the de-anonymized version from the journal? Or can I do so immediately?

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

First, congratulations! Welcome to the club. Second, you should read the contract you signed with the publisher. It is a contract. And you signed it. It is imperative that you learn what you can legally do.

I agree on all counts. Different publishers can have very different policies. Some publishers allow you to post final drafts (non-copyedited, etc.) on non-profit repositories such as PhilPapers immediately upon acceptance. However, others have 'embargo periods' of a year or two post-publication during which you can post a final draft to your website, but which you have to wait to pass before you can post anything to a repository. Other publishers still do not permit any version of a paper to be posted to a repository, but instead only allow you to link to the actual published version at the journal. Finally, many publishers only allow posting drafts to non-profit repositories, but absolutely forbid posting drafts to for-profit sites (such as Academia.edu). 

Long story short, the safe thing to do is to read (and follow) your publishing contract very carefully. Of course, I suspect that not everyone follows such requirements. But personally, I wouldn't risk that. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

CV gaps and the market?

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

I struck out on the job market this year, no surprise. I haven't even been able to secure adjuncting gigs for the fall. And I have not had any luck finding employment outside of the faculty track, either. If I go back on the market, how bad will it look that I have no affiliation and no employment for the upcoming academic year? Will that lower my chances even further?

Good questions. It's not clear from the reader's comment whether they are just out of graduate school and this past year was their first year on the job market. If so, I suspect that they will still look like someone 'just out of graduate school' and the gap on their CV won't matter much. I suspect this is especially true right now, due to the COVID pandemic. Search committee members will be well aware that candidates just out of grad school faced a uniquely horrible market this past year.

On the other hand, my sense is that the longer one is out of grad school, the more likely it is that these kinds of gaps are likely to affect one's chances. Generally speaking, my guess is that you want to look like you are 'still in the game', publishing, getting teaching experience, etc. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? I'm especially curious to hear from people who have served on search committees.

Tips for a first-time conference presenter?

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

I have my first conference presentation coming up with a dedicated commentator. Any tips for navigating the session will be very much appreciated! What is the general aim of a commentary? What do I say after the commentator finishes? What are some strategies for navigating the Q&A? (Do people like presenting papers? I've been regretting submitting this one for months!)

Congrats to the OP, and great questions! I'm curious to hear how other readers answer, but here are some quick thoughts:

1. Any general tips?: If at all possible, don't read your paper. Instead, either present from a couple-page handout or from a PowerPoint (though if you plan for the latter, make sure the conference has A/V!). Also, try to get your commentary in advance from your commentator--at a minimum, a few days in advance and ideally a week or two before that so that you have time to think through a good response. Then, if at all possible, write out your response, at least in bullet-points. It's generally a good idea to practice your talk so that you see what works and to ensure that your talk fits properly into your allotted time. Also, try to speak fairly slowly and deliberately. Finally, be sure to present the version of the paper that your commentator received. It is extremely bad form to 'revise' your paper and present a different version after they have read the version you submitted.

Alternative paths to academic philosophy jobs?

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

The standard path towards landing an academic job in philosophy involves getting a doctoral degree in philosophy, and upon its completion, either securing a post-doctoral position in a related field or (if one is lucky) securing a fixed-term or tenure-track position within a philosophy department.

Now, I get the sense that there is some apprehension towards offering someone who has already obtained a doctoral degree (in a different subject) a place within the philosophy department to complete another doctoral degree, perhaps for reasons of fairness -- that given the competitive nature, it is only fair that someone who does not have a doctoral degree be offered a chance to obtain that degree than someone who already has a doctoral degree.

However, without a doctorate in philosophy, it appears difficult (much harder than it usually would be for people with a philosophy doctorate) to secure a post-doctoral position in philosophy, especially if the area of their original doctorate is pretty far from their primary(ish) research interests in philosophy. Even if one were to chance upon a rare instance where they do secure a post-doc position, it appears to be an uphill battle to convince a hiring committee that one indeed has sufficient philosophical background to teach philosophy at an undergraduate level (I have a suspicion that many would not consider having a master's degree to be sufficient). It therefore seems that, at best, one no more competitive within the job market after the end of that post-doc tenure even if they were to be lucky enough to land a post-doctoral position in philosophy without a doctoral degree in the subject (again, I suspect that one would, in fact, be less competitive on the job market because of the unconventional academic path).

So, more specifically, I have the following questions:

(i) is there an alternative path towards landing an academic job in philosophy that is just as effective/efficient as the standard path?

(ii) if the standard path is all that is available, what could someone who has already obtained a doctorate in a different subject (and is currently pursuing a master's degree in philosophy) do to make themselves reasonably competitive when applying for their second PhD so that their application is not dismissed on the account that they have already received a doctoral degree?

Interesting questions. I'm not sure that there is an alternative path toward landing an academic job in philosophy. But fortunately, I'm not sure there's any reason to think that PhD program admissions committees in philosophy are likely to be apprehensive toward admitting someone who already has a PhD in another field. Far from it, my guess is that admissions committees may find candidates like this especially interesting--as the person's expertise in another field could well enrich their department. Indeed, what could be better than having a new PhD student who has expertise in (say) physics, or psychology, or biology, political science, sociology, etc.? All of these fields (and many others besides!) have much to offer philosophy, and I imagine it might not only be interesting on a day-to-day basis to have someone like that in the department, but also educational, offering grad students and faculty alike fertile ground for expanding their horizons and knowledge-base.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Handling frustrating journal verdicts?

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

I just received a verdict from a journal. One referee suggested minor revisions and the other referee suggested major revisions. However, the editor rejected my paper. I wonder if that is common nowadays? Could I argue with the editor? Or is the idea crazy?

In my experience, this is very common. In fact, I received a similar verdict just yesterday. While I've heard of rare cases where arguing with editors can work (specifically, in cases where a referee made clear and obviously negligent mistakes in reading the paper), my sense is that, generally speaking, it's probably not worth one's while to argue with editors. If they made the decision they made, it's probably for a reason. Perhaps they agreed with the referee who advocated major revisions, and they (the editors) just thought that even with the major revisions, the paper is at most 'very good' rather than excellent, and the editors only want to publish stuff in the journal that they (and both reviewers) deem to be excellent. That's their prerogative as editors, after all.

Tips for being forward-looking on the market?

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

Over this year and the last I have had a few interviews for amazing jobs and a few great long lists where I had to choose to send in this or that writing sample. I have a really hard time not regretting my decisions—if only I'd done this instead of that in the interview, if only I'd sent in that paper...I know regretting is a pointless enterprise, not to mention a pretty draining one, but I can't seem not to fixate on things that I might have done differently. I suppose this is more a question for a psychologist, but maybe someone here has some strategies for becoming more forward-looking on the market. The stakes are so high that just hard not to think: that one thing would have really changed my life...

This is indeed a difficult question, and perhaps one that a psychologist might be best equipped to help with. Still, I'm curious whether other readers who have struggled with similar issues have any helpful tips to share. How do you deal with disappointment on the market, and in particular with being forward-looking? What have you found to be helpful for avoiding rumination and regrets about things one 'could have done differently'?

Getting students to do readings?

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

Marcus mentioned this briefly in a different thread, but how do you get your students to do the reading on a semi-regular basis? I've tried quizzes, and while they had an effect, they also made me the bad guy and often ruined rapport. In upper-level courses I require weekly reading questions/posts. But I'm more concerned with lower-level mandatory classes.

This is an excellent question, and I'm curious to hear from readers. I too haven't found quizzes to be a good strategy. Whenever possible, I've found the best strategy to be short reading response papers--even papers that are just 4-5 sentences long. But I also teach relatively small classes, and I recognize this isn't a real option for larger classes. Do any of you have good strategies for incentivizing student reading, particularly in lower-level mandatory courses?

Doing conference commentaries in grad school?

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

I am an incoming first-year PhD student (thank you everyone for all of the wonderful advice on applications last year!), and my department only offers travel funding for presenting or commenting at a professional conference (i.e., no graduate student conferences). Is investing time in trying to comment on papers worth it? If so, how does one go about doing this? Are early PhD students unlikely to receive these opportunities without publications? Any advice about how this process works is greatly appreciated (especially as some conferences appear to be planning on being in-person starting in the fall).

Good questions! I'm not entirely sure what the answers are, but here are some quick thoughts. It seems to me like it could very much be worth doing conference commentaries while in grad school, particularly if your department offers travel funding. First, you'll get practice reading, thinking about, and responding to professional level work-in-progress. Second, you'll get to attend a lot of other talks, which is an excellent learning opportunity. Finally, you'll get to meet people in the profession! It's important, however, to do a good job with your commentary, so I'd definitely suggest running your commentary by your grad advisor or another faculty member of two. In terms of how to become a conference commentator, I expect the best way may be to simply email the conference organizers and express interest. However, I'm not sure how open conference organizers are early PhD students giving commentaries. What do you all think? Do any of you have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Overcoming fear of 'talking shop'?

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

I am terrified of talking about philosophy on the fly. I like reading it, writing, and presenting on what I have written and researched, and I don't even mind answering questions about what I have presented on. But talking about philosophy in a casual way makes me so anxious that I struggle to even follow what the other person is saying. This is such a foundational skill in academic philosophy, and I'm wondering if anyone with anxiety around "talking shop" has found a way to move past it.

This is an interesting query, and given that the reader asked for advice, I'm curious whether any other readers have any helpful tips to offer. At the same time, I guess I'd like to challenge the underlying assumptions here: namely that talking shop 'is such a foundational skill in academic philosophy' that one has to be comfortable doing it, and do it a lot. Allow me to explain.

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?