The Philosophers' Cocoon

Quantitative results from search committees for last year's job searches?

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

Could we maybe have a thread in which search committee members anonymously describe the quantitative results of their job searches from last year? I'm wondering how many people applied and how many were interviewed, etc. Of course, tenure-line searches are most interesting, but I'm also curious about non-TT searches like those for VAPs and Assistant Teaching Professors.

Interesting question. Are any search committee members able and willing to weigh in? It would be great to hear what kind of college or university you're at, what kind of position you hired for, how many people applied, etc.

What counts as a good generalist journal?

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

What counts as a "good" generalist journal? I am an MA student and have recently had a R&R from a well-known although not Top journal (the lower end of the Leiter Top 20) after being encouraged to submit by a professor. This is my first publication, and this was the first venue I submitted the paper to. After having read some posts (on here and elsewhere) about the importance of publications in top journals, I am now concerned that simply being in the top 20 does not mean that this venue is well-regarded enough, and a publication there may be looked on poorly during PhD applications. Am I overthinking, or should I really be aiming only for top 10ish journals?

Beauty, meet Eye of the Beholder. Seriously, I don't think there's any objective answer to this question. I've met some people who only seem to see top-5 or top-10 journals as good, others who only see some top-10 journals to be good, others who see all top-20 to be good, etc. I think a lot depends on context. If you're trying to get a job at NYU or Princeton, then yeah, you probably need to be publishing in top-10/top-5 places. But if you're like most of us who aren't at places like that, top-20 is probably sufficient for being considered "good."

But this is just my off-the-cuff reaction. What do readers think?

How to make (journal) rejections easier?

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

How to make rejections easier? After years in the game I still get a gut punch when I get a paper rejected. Does anyone have tips for reducing this in advance (I guess I mean actionable tips while the paper is under review, not longer term ones like get therapy and don't tie your self esteem to your work…).

I really empathize, but unfortunately have no real tips. Although rejections have gotten a bit easier for me over the years because I don't need them so much (as I did while on the market), they still sting a lot, and I don't know if that will ever go away. 

Do any readers have any helpful tips?

A brief vacation

This is just a quick note that I’m taking a brief vacation the rest of the week. I’ll still moderate comments, but probably won’t publish any new posts until next Monday!

Best and Worst Conference Experiences

By Trevor Hedberg

Most philosophers have attended at least a few conferences. Sometimes, they are immersive and rewarding experiences where we get valuable feedback on our work, meet new people, and enjoy some good meals on the university’s funds. Other times, things do not go so well. I thought it might be worth sharing my best and worst conference experiences to provide a sense of how varied these events can be. Ironically, these took place at two iterations of the same event.

The best conference experience I ever had was the 2018 meeting of the Rocky Mountain Ethics Congress (RoME). RoME is a fairly large conference that takes place in Boulder, CO in August. I attended a workshop the day before the conference hosted by the Society for the Study of Ethics and Animals and delivered a commentary on a paper about how business ethics could incorporate animals into its traditional frameworks. I later gave a commentary during the conference on a paper about the ethics of experimenting on animals, and I journeyed to the Wild Animal Sanctuary outside Denver with other interested philosophers during the Saturday afternoon that is always kept free at this event (for hikes and other outings). In between and after these events were enjoyable dinners and a lot of interesting presentations. It was a good experience in all the ways a conference attendee could reasonably hope for.

When I returned to RoME in 2023, I wanted to visit the Wild Animal Sanctuary again, so I made arrangements to rent a car. (Ride services like Uber will typically not pick you up at the sanctuary – it’s too far outside the city limits.) Although my flight into Denver was a bit delayed, things started out well enough, and Friday was a reasonably good day. My paper presentation was neither great nor terrible, but I did get some high-quality feedback on the paper. I was out late that night with some friends, and I slept through my alarm the next morning. This is where things went awry.

I was slated to chair a session that day, and though I had overslept a bit, I still had plenty of time to drive into Boulder and get to the session. (I was staying a bit outside the city to reduce hotel costs.) Unfortunately, there was a significant accident on the highway that morning that turned a 15-minute drive into a 50-minute drive, and by the time I got the car parked and made it to campus, that session was well underway. Fortunately, one of the conference organizers stepped in to serve as chair, so nothing major was disrupted. I later learned that several other conference attendees got caught in that delay on the highway, so I imagine quite a few sessions were impacted. Still, it doesn’t feel great to shirk one’s professional responsibilities – even accidentally.

That afternoon (the Saturday with free time), I went back to the Wild Animal Sanctuary with another interested philosopher. I asked the staff a lot of questions about their operations and took a lot of pictures. My hope was to use this information to design an activity about animal confinement for future environmental ethics courses. Afterward, I dropped off my comrade in animal observation near the CU-Boulder campus, parked my car nearby, and went to dinner. I had one drink with the conference-going crowd at a bar and then decided to head back to my hotel. I planned to attend most of the sessions on Sunday before going back to the airport for my return flight.

When my rental car came into view, I sensed something didn’t look right. And indeed, it wasn’t. While I was at dinner, someone had crashed into the rear driver’s side of the car at high speed, knocking it up onto the curb. (There were cars on both sides of my vehicle on the street; it had to be impressively bad driving to hit the car at the angle of impact.) The damage was quite significant. As I surveyed the wreck, a few people approached me from a nearby building. This ended up being one of the college’s fraternities. Remarkably, a CU-Boulder student had seen the impact when it happened: a white Prius crashed into the car and then drove off. He had called the police and reported the incident, and he even managed to snap photos of the car fleeing the scene, which he texted to me.

What followed was a prolonged series of phone calls between the CU Boulder Police and the accident / emergency service with the rental car company. Amazingly, the police had already found the Prius and completed a report. I submitted a ton of information to the rental car folks and arranged for the vehicle to be towed: it was too badly damaged to be safe to drive back to the airport. And somewhere in that process I discovered that my driver’s license was not in my wallet…

I deduced that I had taken my driver’s license out at the bar and not seen it afterward. It was open until 2:00 am, so I walked back there. After explaining my situation, I was allowed to search the grounds. I didn’t find my license, but I was given a number to call the next day; perhaps my license would turn up after they closed and cleaned up.

I got an Uber and went back to my hotel. The next morning, though I was still tired (having gotten to sleep after 3:00 am), my head was clearer, and I carefully searched my laptop bag and clothes for my driver’s license. I found it buried in the bottom of one of the side compartments. I still don’t know how it got there, but I suspect that I did not get it secured in my wallet successfully and that it fell out at some point when I was searching for my insurance information and digging a pen out of the bag. Perhaps I just didn’t notice in the darkness.

With one crisis averted, I spent several hours making phone calls to my insurance company, filing a claim, filling out paperwork, and uploading pictures, documents, etc., to their online system. I then took a bus to the airport and went to the rental car kiosk to make sure everything was in order before I left Colorado. I did not go to any of the Sunday sessions at the conference.

Now that’s a rough night, but that’s not why this was the worst conference experience I have had. My suffering was not yet complete. Getting reimbursed for this conference travel took months. First, there was some weird error with my travel authorization (which I had submitted and gotten approved before leaving for the conference), so I had to resubmit that material and wait for it to be processed again before I could request reimbursement. Afterward, the financial office repeatedly asked for amendments and clarification on my expenses even after I had sent a detailed narrative of the chaotic events Saturday night and every conceivable receipt one could need regarding expenses. At one point, they even asked me to describe in detail what in-class exercise I was going to use with the information learned at the Wild Animal Sanctuary (because they apparently did not want to reimburse the $50 entry fee). I did get reimbursed eventually – almost 3 months after the trip.

The interactions between my car insurance and the rental car company lasted far longer, though. I had not opted into the extra insurance coverage with the rental car company, but my comprehensive coverage was, I thought, very good. Following several months of complete silence (where I could not get any concrete information from the rental company about the situation), negotiations between the damage recovery agent and my insurance took another several months. Throughout the process, I was repeatedly looped into email exchanges, sent bills (and amended / updated bills), and reminded that I would be liable for all costs if my insurance did not pay in a timely manner. At some point, they did pay, and presumably due to the police report and the other party being liable for the accident, the whole bill got covered. I was financially unscathed by the whole thing (although I still had to make several requests to the rental company to get an official letter documenting that the claim was closed and that I owed them nothing).

Near the end of April (almost 9 months after the conference), the aftermath of that unfortunate Saturday night was finally resolved. I remain deeply grateful for the quick-witted student who called the police and got photos of the fleeing vehicle. Good sir, wherever you are, I hope you’re doing well.

So that’s my experience from RoME 2023. For those of you who attended RoME 2024 (which just concluded), I hope you had a better time. I'm not sure there are any grand lessons to learn from this experience, but if I make it back to Boulder in the future, I won’t be renting a car.

Have you had a conference experience that is just as bad (or worse) than this one? If so, what made it so bad, and how did you handle it? Or if you want to inject some cheeriness into this thread, what was your best conference experience, and what made it memorable?

(Moderator’s note: given its safe and supportive mission, the Cocoon is not a place to “out” or malign people. So, if you share bad experiences, please suitably anonymize things so that readers cannot reasonably infer people’s identities. Comments that run afoul of this won’t be approved)

How junior faculty can become good supervisors to discouraged grad students?

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

How can junior faculty become good supervisors, especially when the students they are supervising are not optimistic/enthusiastic about their degrees?

I am tenure-track faculty in a department which requires regular supervision of MA and PhD students. I care deeply about philosophy and about my students, but many of my students seem unable to prioritize their own research and writing - indeed, several seem indifferent to their own thesis (even while expressing sorrow and regret at not being more productive/better philosophers). I have tried various things, including being very involved, very uninvolved, and strategies I experienced as a PhD student myself. Nothing seems to be working. The quality and quantity of work is not commensurate with what they (or I) expect/believe possible.

I know the job market is tough. I know that many grad students need to take paying work elsewhere, have family obligations, etc., and I am not unsympathetic - grad school is pretty recent for me, so I remember. None of this changes the fact that they are in this program and I need to help them get through it with a good, well-written thesis/dissertation. I worry that I am not doing the right thing(s) to help my supervisees (maybe it is a matter of time and experience, but I don't want to short-change my current supervisees while I learn how to be a better supervisor!). Any insights would be much appreciated!

This is a great query, and my first reaction is that the OP is already doing a lot right by caring about this. My own sense is that sometimes grad faculty can write off students like this, deeming them unsuitable for academia/professional success. As someone who struggled a lot in grad school--in significant part because of personal issues (like many people do in their mid 20s)--I'll forever be grateful to the faculty in my program who were simply patient with me and continued supporting me. That alone is really all that I needed. But, of course, I'm only one case. So, it would be great to hear both from faculty and grad students with experience in these areas.

Do you have any helpful tips or experiences to share with the OP?

The most rejections you’ve received on a paper?

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

What is the highest number of rejections you’ve ever received on a single paper? I have a paper that is now on its seventh rejection- not even an R&R. I’ve gotten some useful feedback. And I genuinely try to improve the paper in light of it. But I mostly find the reviewer comments to be trivial, misunderstand the paper, sometimes conflicting, or else unhelpful.

My record is 14 (it’s now one of my most-cited papers!). I’ve given up on papers before, but my recommendation is to keep at it until you’re convinced that a paper is hopeless.

What about the rest of you? What’s your record (and the paper’s ultimate fate)?

Resources for dealing with AI in education?

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

I was wondering whether you knew if there was a specific place on this website with discussion of A.I. in education where there are resources/links that might be useful? I've looked around and can't find anything (maybe I'm not searching properly and if so apologies in advance -- I haven't used this site for a long time)

Good query, and I'm curious too. Do any readers have any helpful resources to share?

Advice for new department chairs?

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

Advice for someone becoming a department chair? (Small department, small school, if that matters.)

Great question. I'm on childcare duty this week, so I don't have much time to type. But having served as chair for four years, I'll say that the job can be pretty easy until it's not (though maybe the easy part is idiosyncratic to my department, which is fortunately free of the kinds of divisions that can be hard problems for a chair to navigate).

In my experience, the most difficult parts (by far) are handling the kinds of emergencies/putting out fires that it's impossible to prepare for: instructors quitting mid-semester, student and/or parent complaints, etc. Do things by the book, document everything, stand by your faculty, treat them fairly and with integrity and transparency, and learn how to handle a hard conversation tactfully and compassionately when necessary.

Finally, I'd recommend realizing that some issues (e.g. legal ones) are above your pay grade, and should be settled by deans and other administrators, not you.

But these are just a few quick tips. Do any readers with experience have any other helpful ones to share?

Navigating a small department with preexisting internal conflicts?

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

Thoughts about how to successfully navigate a small department with preexisting internal conflicts? (I'm a mid-career, tenured philosopher, fairly new to the place.) I'd prefer not to say more to avoid identification--though sadly, this description probably fits a few institutions.

Great question. I'm not sure that I have many good tips to offer, as fortunately my own small department doesn’t fit this description. But I guess if I had one tip to offer, it would be this: don't presume to understand the nature or the depth of the conflicts there are. Obviously, there are many sides to most stories, and believing you have a grasp of the nature of them might land you in trouble. Also, of course, not all conflicts are equal. Some are mere conflicts of personalities or priorities, others the result of legitimately bad or even unethical behavior. I don't know if there are any good rules for handling different types of conflicts like these, as they can differ in so many details (every situation is different).

So perhaps it would be best to hear from readers who have grappled with this stuff. Do you have any helpful experiences, tips, or other insights to share?

One quick reminder: please be mindful of the Cocoon's safe and supportive mission. The Cocoon isn't the kind of place to spread rumors or "out" people or departments, either explicitly or by implication. Comments that run afoul of our mission in these or other ways will not be approved.

Grappling with lack of a sense of belonging to the profession?

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

How common is it to feel the lack of a sense of belonging (to the profession of philosophy)? How do you handle it?

I am a mid-career (tenured but not "senior" if it makes sense) philosopher at a small, non-elite school. My job is teaching-oriented, and teaching takes most of my time. I have published maybe 1 article per year on average. I have had less and less a sense of belonging in recent years. I occasionally saw posts here complaining about the unpaid work (and overwork) in the profession. I feel like, "I am sorry for your experience but, hey, I feel jealous in an odd way!"

For example, I have not received any invitation to give a talk or to attend a workshop anywhere. I receive review requests probably like 2-3 times per year. My department does not have a graduate program, and I never served as an external member for a thesis committee. I have received one book review request (which I declined because I did not have time). When I was at APA meetings, I was not part of any already-established circles, and I usually ended up talking with some graduate students who were similarly lost and awkward.

Maybe this is just a fact for me to accept. I am introvert and I do not like (and almost have never done) self-promoting. I am curious, though, is there any way to create some sense of belonging other than publishing more articles/books as a way to let others know you?

Good questions. I suspect this is pretty common, and I empathize. I've definitely felt it at times, particularly earlier in my career when I didn't know many people in the profession. Also, as an introvert myself, getting to know people isn't my greatest forte. Still, I've found that going to conferences helps, as over time I've been able to make friends in the profession.

I guess that would be my biggest tip: send stuff to conferences and try to get to know people. Other than that, I've always just tried to enjoy my work locally--that is, my research, teaching, and friends and colleagues in my own locale.

What do readers think? How common is a lack of a sense of belonging? If it's something you grapple with, how do you handle it?

Taking days off for special events or conferences?

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

What's the protocol for taking time off for special events like weddings when you're a VAP or lecturer scheduled to teach on those days? Do you just figure out yourself how to handle those missed days (i.e., by pre-recording lectures or having synchronous Zoom lectures) or do you have to run it by your department chair?

While we're on the topic, what's the protocol for taking a few days off to attend or speak at a conference or an invited talk?

I suspect answers to these questions are probably institution-relative. At my institution, we're expected to notify our chair and administrative assistant of days we'll be absent from teaching, and in some cases we're supposed to provide "alternative assignments" (such as posting a lecture, etc.). The best thing to do, I think, is to ask your chair!

What do readers think, and what are the protocols where you are?

CFA: 90s Alternative and Philosophy

Call for Abstracts!

90s Alternative and Philosophy: Thinking Outside the Heart-Shaped Box

Edited by Joshua Heter and Richard Greene

Abstracts are sought for a collection of essays on any philosophical topic related to 90s alternative rock which may also include a number of subgenres (e.g., grunge, indie rock, emo, 3rd wave punk & ska, pop punk, nu metal & rap-rock, brit-pop, shoegaze, industrial, neo-psychedelia, etc.). Potential contributors may want to examine previous volumes from Heter and Greene: Punk Rock and Philosophy: Research and Destroy (2022) and Post-Punk and Philosophy: Rip it Up and Think Again (2024). Abstracts and eventual essays should be written for an educated but non-specialized audience (with an approximate length of 3,000 – 3,500 words). Potential topics include (but are not limited to)…

Good joint philosophy & psych PhD programs?

A reader writes in:

I had a student ask me about joint philosophy and psychology PhD programs today ... She's already been doing a bit of research and knows that Yale and Wash U have programs but I thought there must be other joint degree programs as well as programs where there are strong links between the two departments. Do you have any suggestions?

Good question. I'm not that well clued in, as I knew about Wash U but only remembered Yale when the OP mentioned it. Are there other good joint phil-psych PhD programs?

Do any readers have any helpful tips?

Dealing with a department with issues as a grad student?

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

I'm in a phd program that has recently had a lot of turnover and department issues. While I am done with coursework and have a relatively clear path to finishing my dissertation, I worry about further developments and obstacles that are both unforeseeable (in their specifics) and out of my control as a grad student. Each time there is a new instance of bad news, I go through a new cycle of anxiety about whether it will be viable to finish in the program and whether that particular development will have any bearing on my job prospects.

Does anyone have any advice on how to both a) deal with this kind of anxiety as a grad student and b) try and better identify what kinds of developments I should take seriously as reasons to consider searching for ways to transition out of graduate school? I think (b) is a more pressing issue, as there are plenty of things that decrease the quality of intellectual environment without threatening my ability to finish in my program or decreasing my chances of finding a job. Plus, figuring out (b) will contribute to figuring out (a).

I'm sorry the OP is dealing with this. I had to transfer PhD programs when four of my first program's faculty were hired away by other programs. I was fortunate enough to have it happen early on, so I can only imagine how difficult it must be to see faculty turnover and other stuff happen much later on. Alas, I'm not sure that I have any helpful advice to offer aside from: just focus on finishing and putting yourself in the best position you can to get a job. Maybe also try to keep in good touch with faculty who have been hired away?

What do readers think? It would be great to hear from readers who have grappled with similar situations.

How to go about submitting book proposals?

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

How does one go about submitting a book proposal?

I have heard various tales: folks who got in touch with editors with just a brief paragraph pitch, to garner interest, and then waited to see if the editor wanted more, and then sent more; folks who didn't seek a publisher until a full manuscript draft was written; some who submitted a 10 page or so synopsis + a chapter; and so on.

In general I'd really like to know how people have gone about the early stages of book publication.

Good question! We've discussed book proposals before, but it would be great to hear from readers with experience in getting proposals accepted.

I've had three proposals accepted. In my experience, most publishers have clear directions for submitting proposals on their website, often with forms they want you to fill out on the book's substance, competitors, etc. In none of the cases did I have a full manuscript written first. While I've heard that some people go that route, if it were me I'd worry about putting all the work into a full manuscript without a contract in hand.

What do other readers think? Any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Grappling with responsibility for family relocations?

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

I'm curious if others have advice on some of the difficult feelings that can arise from feeling responsible for family member relocations. I recently got a job (yay!), which led my partner and I to move from a place we really liked to a place that we're still trying to figure out. The only reason we are in this place is because of my job, which is difficult in and of itself, but I find myself also feeling guilty for taking us away from the place we liked, as well as some burden for making our new place good for both of us.

My partner certainly had a say in where I applied for work and, ultimately, in whether we would move or not. There's just no easy way to be married to an academic though! Given how much my partner cares about my well-being, and how supportive they are of my dreams, it was pretty much a no-brainer that I would take the job that I did. So it's not like I feel like I "forced" the move to happen, exactly, but it still kind of feels like it would have been a pretty difficult veto.

Anyway, if you've had these sorts of emotions (or others!), I'd love hear about them, even if you never really found a cure.

I suspect that many academics empathize with the OP--I certainly do, though I'm not sure that I have any helpful advice to offer. Fortunately, my spouse and I are happy where we are now, but the early years definitely weren't easy on either of us moving away from friends and family. 

Do any readers have any tips or experiences to share?

How are Oxford BPhils regarded by American PhD admissions committees?

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

How is the Oxford Bphil regarded by American PhD admissions committees? In particular, how are BPhil grades/marks and transcripts regarded by American PhD admissions committees?

Standard advice for applying to philosophy PhD programs is to get *stellar* grades and straight A's in philosophy, and if not, to do an MA afterwards...and to definitely show no decline in your grade trajectory.

The particularities of the Oxford BPhil makes it hard to interpret this advice because:

1. In theory, marks range from 0-100, with marks above 65 "merit", marks above 70 "low distinction", above 75 "middle distinction" and above 85 "high distinction." In practice, virtually nothing is given a mark above 72, and there is a very high variance in marks...with a "Distinction" awarded for the degree as a whole for any candidate whose five highest essay marks average above a 67 average and whose thesis is marked 70 or higher...

2. People don't talk openly about grades on the BPhil because it has a pretty atomized and zero-sum competition culture...but if a transcript with grades below 70 (or, 75?) is considered blemished, it is difficult to understand how so many BPhil grads seem to get into good to excellent American PhD programs given that average BPhil marks are between 65 and 70 across the cohort, but almost everyone in the BPhil from the US coming with a near perfect transcript, often from unambiguously elite schools. Did we all sort of screw ourselves by incurring this transcript risk on the BPhil?

So, how are BPhil transcripts interpreted by US graduate admissions committees?

What is a Bphil transcript equivalent to an American MA 3.9 (or, whatever the defacto cut-off is before a transcript requires explanation)?

I have no idea, and didn't know about any of the issues the OP mentions. Given how idiosyncratic the BPhil grading system is, I too wonder what admissions committee members make of it.

What do readers think? Does anyone with experience in PhD admissions have any inside insights?

Will publications outside your job's AOS help with tenure?

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

Suppose:
A job advertises for an AOS in ethics, and AOC in epistemology.
My AOSes are broader: Ethics & metaphysics
My AOCs are broader: epistemology & X-phi

Will only publications in ethics (and perhaps epistemology) count towards tenure?
-Will metaphysics count?
-Will x-phi count?
-Will anything outside these fields count?

Great questions. In my department, it would count toward tenure. But I imagine things might be different elsewhere, maybe particularly at R1 programs where one is expected to be a leading figure (and graduate advisor) in the AOS you were hired in?

What do readers think?

How can we help you? (July 2024)

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:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching (including in the age of A.I.)
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask away - we're here to help! 

Finally, a quick reminder of the following NEW RULE: in the past, I have allowed people to submit follow-up comments to queries in these threads, and sometimes included those comments in new posts on this thread's queries. Given the number of comments and replies that are submitted, this has become infeasible for me to keep track of. So, please only submit queries in the thread below, not responses to queries already submitted. If you'd like to respond to a query, please wait until I actually post on the person's query myself and comment in that thread instead!

Tips for an American PhD in a European postdoc?

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

I got a multiple-yr postdoc in Europe, PhD from the US. It's primarily research based with opportunities to teach once or twice. Since I know relatively little about European postdoctoral positions, can people chime in about their first- or second-hand experiences with European postdoc duties and expectations? I'm interested in the following questions:

(1) Are European postdocs expected to stay in the region outside the regular semesters? For example, during the PhD, I could go wherever I wanted during the summer and do my thing. This is probably normal with VAPs/tt positions. Will I be fine if I want to return to the US during a portion of the summer, for instance, when activity is low and focus on research there? How can I best approach that possibility?

(2) This is my first time as a postdoc, let alone abroad. For the PIs in the audience with postdocs, what're some things postdocs have done that contributed uniquely to the project and to your excellent recommendation of them to colleagues or in letters?

(3) Anything else you might want to add about european research postdocs? I've heard anecdotally about the european postdoc "trap" though I have my concerns about that terminology. What to really avoid?

Great questions, though I'm not well-positioned to provide any helpful answers.

Do any readers with experience have any experiences or insights to share?

Following the Cocoon on PhilPeople's News Feed?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Jakub Mácha wrote:

I used to follow new posts on Cocoon via my PhilPapers/Philpeople news page. However, new posts don't appear there anymore (in contrast to Daily Nous and other blogs). Any thoughts on how to fix this issue?

Hmm...when I log in to PhilPeople, go to "News Feed", and click on "Manage Blogs", The Philosophers' Cocoon still comes up.

Is anyone else having Jakub's problem?

Which generalist journals publish 'pure' philosophy of science?

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

Does anyone have a sense of which generalist journals regularly publish (so to speak) "pure" philosophy of science papers? And why don't more journals do this?

Lots of generalist journals publish stuff that overlaps with philosophy of science, say metaphysics of science or formal epistemology. It's not hard to find somewhere to submit a paper on laws of nature or the metaphysics of QM, or on Sleeping Beauty or whatever.

But it's hard to submit something on the epistemology of measurement or on the epistemology of randomized controlled trials to places outside of the main philosophy of science speciality journals. Synthese and (sometimes) Erkenntnis do this but they have a long tradition of being phil science friendly. Nous and JPhil also seem to do this, but it's hard to get a sense of the rest of where the rest of the top-20 generalist journals stand.

I mean, I once had an entirely non-formal paper from a HPS angle rejected from a regular journal for "being too formal," which journal also regularly publishes highly technical formal epistemology papers. So, what gives? And are there generalist journals which are willing to accept papers on topics in the philosophy of science that don't overlap so clearly w/ formal epistemology and metaphysics?

I have no idea. Do any readers have any helpful insights?

What's Wrong With Rankings 3: Hidden Value Judgments

By Sam Duncan

The thing I object to most strongly in rankings is that I think they all have value judgments baked in and that by using them one is accepting those judgments without thinking about or taking responsibility for a value judgment. Now I won’t lie, I find the values baked into the PGR especially bad ones, but I sincerely believe that this is a problem inherent in any attempt to rank graduate programs in philosophy or education more generally. Consider the way that judgments about what is good philosophy are hidden in the PGR’s supposedly objective and factual ranking. 

The way that specialty rankings are listed and what specialty rankings are listed is especially revealing. Metaethics and moral psychology get their own slot in the “Value Theory” heading and so does philosophy of law. But bioethics, digital ethics, business ethics, and environmental ethics are all rolled into one big ball and listed as “Applied Ethics.” It could be worse for them though. Feminism isn’t even judged to be “Value Theory” but is instead relegated to “Other.” Kant gets an entire slot to himself under “History” while Chinese philosophy and Indian philosophy are also crammed into the “Other” drawer. Indian philosophy doesn’t even get its own proper category in “Other.” Islamic philosophy isn’t listed anywhere. I don’t think anyone could accuse me of lacking sufficient respect for Kant, but that he gets a slot all his own while Zhuangzi, Confucius, Mengzi, and Lao Tzu are all stuffed into a single category that isn’t even counted as proper history of philosophy is indefensible. That the PGR tacitly says that al-Ghazali and ibn-Rushd aren’t even philosophers is so off base I’m literally at a loss for words.

Drawbacks to multiple publications in the same journal?

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

Are there any significant drawbacks to having multiple publications in the same journal?

Having two papers in two different journals could look less impressive than having two in the same journal. But as long as the journals are relatively on par with one another, is it that big of a deal?

I ask because I've got a paper forthcoming in a well-run journal and another paper I know would be a good fit with it. It's tough to find well-run journals these days, and it's even harder to find a well-run journal that would also be a good fit for a polished draft.

Thoughts?

Maybe if most of your publications are in a single journal, that might look weird. But I don't see any issue with two publications in the same journal. It may also depend on which journal we're talking about (would anyone bat an eyelash at multiple publications in Philosophical Review?).

What do you all think?

Suggesting reviewers to journals?

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

I have a somewhat minor question, but I think it could be useful for others. How common/useful/recommended is it to suggest specific reviewers when submitting a paper to a journal?

I've come to learn that it is quite common in other fields. Researchers tend to suggest reviewers they think will be congenial to the paper's argument. And, not always but to a greater degree than I would have expected, these reviewers are actually assigned by the editors.

I've never done that in philosophy, fearing that it would be seen poorly by the editors or that the suggested reviewers may guess that I'm the author (unlikely, given my career stage). But none of these considerations seem to weigh heavily in other fields.

Some journals have made me do this as an author. At best, I find it irksome, as journals can require you to hunt down contact information. At worst, it seems to me a way to potentially corrupt the peer-review process, in that authors are more or less self-selecting who they'd prefer to review their paper (many authors give papers at colloquia, send around papers to colleagues, etc.). So personally, I prefer not to see this done. But, in any case, it would seem strange to me to propose reviewers to journals that don't explicitly request or require it.

What do you all think? Is this a common or useful practice?

How Long Does It Take to Peer Review a Paper?

By Trevor Hedberg

One of the Cocoon’s recent posts concerned a reader inquiry about why it takes some referees longer than 2 weeks to review a paper. This is an understandable question – it’s something I wondered about when I was a graduate student – and the ensuing discussion generated an array of responses. Some argued that it wasn’t excusable to take longer than 2 weeks to review a paper; others argued that taking longer was often justified due to busy schedules and a host of other reasons. I thought it might be worth describing my own approach to refereeing papers, how it has changed as I have moved to new jobs, and why I now rarely complete a referee report within two weeks of acceptance.

When I held postdoctoral positions, I reviewed papers pretty quickly. I would read the paper during an afternoon, think about it for a few days (unless it was of such poor quality that it did not warrant much reflection), and then write up my comments during another afternoon. I also did not receive a ton of referee requests, so I typically just had one article review on my to-do list.

I have not been able to maintain that swift completion time in my current position. The biggest reason why is that the demands of my current post are significantly greater than they were during my postdocs – I teach more classes and have much greater service obligations. There are only so many hours in each week that I can reasonably devote to service without a drop in the quality of my work and an increasing risk of burnout. Some of those hours get consumed by meetings, workshops, and various forms of paperwork. I also do a fair amount of reviewing that does not involve philosophy journals. Last year, for instance, I reviewed hundreds of scholarship applications for the W.A. Franke Honors College and evaluated 52 student writing samples as part of a general education review conducted across the University of Arizona, Arizona State University, and Northern Arizona University.

Best timeline for a postdoc search?

A reader writes in:

Longtime reader, sometime commenter on the Cocoon. I have a question I would love to have you throw out to readers. We are planning to do a search for a 2 year post doc this coming year. What is the ideal timeline for a post-doc search? "Ideal for who"? you ask. Well, that's part of my question. What's best for candidates? What's best for the hiring department? Because I think it matters to the answers: I would say our post-doc is attractive … Should we advertise it on the normal job cycle? Or much later (that is: wait for TT hiring to shake out)?

Good questions. Given that most candidates are presumably looking for a TT job, I guess I'd be inclined to think a later timeline for a postdoc hire is better. Then again, I'm an outsider with respect to the issue, so maybe there are things here I'm missing.

What do readers think?

Dealing with an abusive ex-supervisor?

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

So let’s say I just got done spending a few years ... in a department with a history of corrupt faculty: think sexual harassment scandals, forced retirements, etc. Let’s also say I also suspect that my supervisor ... of abuse. The supervisor oversaw a failed tenure case ... drove another non-TT faculty member ... out of the profession with bad treatment, has never graduated a PhD student, treated ... [those] who tried to work with him in abusive ways, and ... sabotaged a former ... student ... in an especially egregious way. The supervisor found ways to make my life utterly miserable ...

What should I do? The department chair is sympathetic but not buying my account, as the supervisor is well-liked by people outside of our subfield. To be clear, this is a moral and not logistical question: I have a new job, am out of that place. But working with this person leaves me feeling violated, definitely struggling to be productive, and I’m not sure what the right thing to do is.

I'm so sorry that the OP and others involved have suffered through this. Do any readers have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

How to polish a paper 'from 80% to 100%"?

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

Does anyone have advice for how to get papers from 80% finished to 100%? I often find that I have a good idea and write a decent first draft. But I then spend easily double the time polishing, usually still not to satisfaction. Often, I find I have lots of extra things to say, and I never know whether it's appropriate to include them or not, so I dither about that. Does anyone have good strategies foreign more efficient? Thanks in advance.

I'd like to challenge the background assumption here: namely, that authors should even aim at getting a paper to "100%." First, you'll never get there. Second, there's no good reason to try. A paper doesn't have to get to 100% for editors or reviewers to like it, and chances are they'll make you rewrite half the thing anyway in a revise-and-resubmit or two. Your task is not to get to 100%. Your task is to get to something like 90%. If the arguments are good and the paper is fairly well polished, send it out. You can't polish a turd into gold, and gold doesn't need to be perfectly polished to be valuable.

But this is just my reaction, and obviously doesn't answer the reader's query on its own terms. What do you all think? Do you have any helpful tips or experiences to relate? 

Why does it take >2 weeks to review a paper?

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

Well not just out of curiosity, but maybe I need to try to understand my fellow reviewers/academics a bit more. So here I am asking, given that one has accepted the task, why would it take anyone more than two weeks to review a paper? What are your reasons/guesses?

Good questions. Do any readers have any helpful insights to share?

Grad school quandary for a reader from the Global South

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

Hello Cocoon readers, and apologies in advance for a long(ish) post. I am an incoming PhD in History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) student at Cambridge HPS this Fall 2024, having won an AHRC and Cambridge Trust funding that cover both tuition and stipend for the duration of the program. I am from the Global South, and I am entering PhD as a mature student (early 30s), having worked as a College Philosophy teacher in my country (having a master’s is the minimum requirement to teach here). I am currently facing a difficult decision, and would appreciate everyone’s advice (esp. those based in the UK and continental EU).

I am currently deliberating whether to separate from my current home institution or not.

The thing is that, it is a life goal for me to work as an academic philosopher in the UK or EU (US too), as they provide a more welcoming and supportive environment for philosophizing (in comparison to my locale, that is). So, this PhD scholarship from Cambridge is a welcome development, as (it seems to me at least) this opens doors to opportunities to work in the UK or EU (perhaps even the US) afterwards. Thus, the option of leaving my current home institution (the reason why it seems like I need to be will be apparent below).

This is just a life goal, of course, and I am aware that this can be frustrated by the sorry state of the philosophy job market around the world. That’s why I am finding it hard to just give-up the security/stability of being essentially remaining an employee of my current home institution (I will just be considered on study leave). They are willing to provide additional funding for my PhD, on top of still giving me my salary, but in exchange of returning to the country afterwards. I will essentially be signing a return service contract (where 1 year leave is to 2 years return service), which means that, IF and when opportunities do arise after my time in Cambridge, I cannot just grab them and go.

So basically the difficulty for me is that: I am not sure about the prospects of a job (i.e., postdocs/fellowships/lectureships) abroad after my PhD, and so it seems like taking the plunge and separating from my institution is risky and comes with great opportunity cost. Of course, I recognize that there will always be risk and opportunity cost in every decision path, but I do not know whether they are worth taking in this particular case. On the other hand, IF opportunities do eventually come, having a contract with my home institution would be a hindrance. But this is a big ‘IF’. I might just be wildly optimistic or overestimating my own abilities (if it is relevant, I already have one publication in a Leiter top 10-15 generalist journal and foreseeing another one in another top 5-10 generalist journal).

I am not sure if I am framing my quandary appropriately (any decision theorist here?), but I would appreciate any advice/insight from everyone—from grad students, early career scholars, and seasoned academics alike.

I'm not sure what to advise. My sense is that the academic job market is terrible in the UK right, and I don't know how competitive UK PhDs are for jobs elsewhere in the EU. I also don't know much about "return service contracts" of the sort the OP describes.

Do any readers with experiences in these matters have any helpful insights?

Journal of the APA to flip to Open Access July 9

Heather Battaly (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of the American Philosophical Association) writes in:

The Editorial Team of JAPA is delighted to announce that all articles accepted for publication in the Journal of the American Philosophical Association from July 9 onwards will be Open Access, published with a Creative Commons license and freely available to read online.

We have an Open Access option for every author: the costs of open access publication will be covered through agreements between the publisher and the author’s institution, payment of APCs (Article Processing Charges) from grants or other funds, or else waived entirely, ensuring every author can publish and enjoy the benefits of Open Access.

The Journal of the American Philosophical Association aims to publish philosophical work of the highest quality in any area of philosophy. The editors are committed to:

• Publishing papers that go out on a limb, papers that start trends rather than merely adding epicycles to going trends
• Publishing papers on topics that draw from and appeal to diverse philosophical constituencies and traditions
• Publishing readable papers that can be appreciated by philosophers not already steeped in the subject matter

Average Time-to-Decision: 43 days

Acceptance rate (prior 12 months): 8.1%

Additional information about the Journal of the APA is available on the Journal’s website. To submit to the Journal, visit the submission website.

For more information about Open Access at JAPA, see this FAQ and the Journal’s Open Access Options page https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/information/journal-policies/open-access-options

Please submit your papers to JAPA!

Heather Battaly
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of the American Philosophical Association

Compendium of Job-Market Resources

Here's a list of links to the Cocoon's Job Market Boot Camp:

1. Building a Strong, Competitive CV

2. Tailoring your job-market strategy to your situation

3. Writing a good CV

4. Common mistakes with CVs

5. Letters of Recommendation

6. The European job market

7. Job-market consultants

8. Developing coherent research program(s)

9. The Cover Letter

10. The Teaching Statement

11. Common mistakes with teaching statements

12. The Research Statement

13. Common mistakes with research statements

14. How to cultivate a professional online presence

15. When and where to apply for tenure-track jobs

16. Where and When to Apply (Addendum)

17. The Teaching Portfolio

18. Common mistakes with teaching portfolios

19. Writing Samples

20. The Diversity Statement

21. First-round Interviews

22. Zoom & Telephone Interviews

23. The British interview

24. The Campus Visit

25. Teaching demos

26. Negotiating

27. Emotional Maintenance

28. Finding support from a mentor

29. When Spring Term Rolls Around

30. Opting for a non-academic career - when, what and how?

31. Teaching demos

 

This is a list of quick-links to our Notes From Both Sides of the Market series:

1. Building a strong CV

2. Organizing one's CV

3. Teaching portfolio dilemmas

4. Making the teaching statement precise

5. Standing out in a crowded field

6. Interpreting interview results

7. Standing out for teaching jobs

8. More on standing out for teaching jobs

9. The elusiveness of "fit"

10. Tenure requirements

11. Tenure requirements & decisionmaking

 

This is a list of links to our Secret Lives of Search Committees series:

1. Top 5 job-market tips

2. Tips from a Research University search committee member

3. Tips from a Liberal Arts College Committee Member

4. How 'fit' matters

5. How applications are read

6. How decisions are made

7. Originality

8. AOS and project choices

9. Staleness

10. Job candidate career stage

11. Teaching experience

12. 'Horse-trading'

13. Online presence

14. Interviews

15. Not acting like a grad student

16. What happens after interviews

17. Teaching dossiers

18. CVs

19. Recommendation letters

20. Job-talks at teaching schools

21. Jobs abroad

22. Campus visits

23. Apply again!

 

And here's a series of Tips from Search Committee Members:

1. How search committees read and evaluate CVs

2. How committees read cover letters

3. How committees read research statements

4. How committees read teaching statements

5. How committees evaluate teaching portfolios

6. How committees evaluate diversity statements

7. How committees evaluate writing samples

8. How committees evaluate recommendation letters

9. How committees evaluate candidates in interviews

Tips for first-time parents in academia?

It's been a while since I've posted personally asking for tips or advice. In part, this is because I've had no time! Last year, just before the start of the academic year, my spouse and I welcomed our first child into the world. It's been an incredible experience, indeed transformative in all of the ways that L.A. Paul's work explores--and in the best ways imaginable (I love being a father!). But, of course, it's also been profoundly challenging, in ways both expected and unexpected.

Anyway, I had sort of meant to post something last year asking for tips, but was never able to get around to it--and in any case my own experience is that there are kind of just several things one has to do the first year: survive, keep the baby happy and alive, and be as good, fair, and helpful of a partner as possible to your partner if you have one (especially when they are the birth parent). Now that summer has rolled around and things have settled down a bit, however, I'd really like to ask readers for tips/advice relating to parenthood in academia beyond the first year.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what the right questions to ask are. What I do know is that becoming a parent has (as it were) "changed everything"--so I'm curious to hear from other parents, particularly those in academic jobs, how it's changed their lives and priorities, how they balance everything, what it takes to be a good parent and partner (including being a good father and husband, given gender dynamics), etc. I could go on, and on (I also have questions related to being an older parent, as my spouse and I waited many years to have a child). But really I expect other people who've been parents in academia know far better than I do which questions and challenges I'm likely to face going forward, so I'd love to hear from anyone who thinks they may have helpful tips or perspective to share.

We did have a thread on tips for parents on the tenure-track a while back (a lot of which emphasized the importance of daycare, which we've been fortunate to find), but I'd really be grateful to hear more from those in the know!

Reflecting on the Point of Job Market Advice

By Trevor Hedberg

A reader recently posed some interesting questions about the purpose of the job-market advice that circulates on the Philosophers’ Cocoon. The basic worry is that the widespread dissemination of this advice prevents it from “scaling” in a way that gives a person a competitive edge over others on the job market. So, for the advice to be most helpful, it would need to be known by only a portion of those on the job market, which would appear to go against the Cocoon’s supportive and inclusive mission.

Marcus responded by emphasizing the point of providing this information was to help students at programs who do not receive adequate mentorship or who otherwise receive guidance about how to prepare for the job market. Having a venue for discussing these matters helps to “level the playing field” by demystifying the preparation, application, and interview processes. Having encountered many graduate students that are largely uninformed about the realities of the job market, I want to reiterate this point. However, given the importance of this inquiry, I also want to highlight some additional reasons why these discussions are valuable.

Tips for developing original philosophical ideas?

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

At least once a week, I have an idea that I think could be developed into a publishable paper. But ninety-five percent of the time, the relevant idea has been published already, usually within the last four years. Is this a common experience? Am I doomed to accidentally reproduce others' work on an almost daily basis for the rest of my academic career? Do any of you have advice for generating original philosophical ideas, or for how to quell the ever-present fear that absolutely everything worth saying about philosophy has already been said (or is about to be said, this month, by someone from NYU)?

Good questions. This happened to me a lot early in my career, particularly in grad school, but it doesn't seem to happen to me much anymore. If I had to put my finger on the reasons why, I think it's probably two-fold.

First, the longer one goes in one's career, the better of a sense one may get of the philosophical terrain that has already been mapped out. You've read a lot more, seen the literature develop, and so on.

But second, the further I've gone along in my career, the less my publishable ideas have come from reading philosophy books or articles. Most of the ideas I've come up with that haven't been taken already have come from simply thinking about day to day life and various problems in the world around me. When you read the philosophical literature, you're typically reading preexisting debates where various positions have already been mined and developed. In contrast, the world around us is always changing in unexpected ways, with new phenomena (social media, large language model AI, etc.) always cropping up that haven't necessarily been mined philosophically as much.

So, I guess that would be my tip: focus a bit less on the literature, and more on what philosophically interests you about the world! But this is just me.

What do you all think? Which strategies for developing original philosophical ideas do you find fruitful?

Reaching out to an author whose paper you refereed post-publication, or to a referee who reviewed your work?

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

Is it okay to reach out to an author whose paper you refereed after it has been published? I would only do so to compliment the author and/or continue a conversation that the paper/comments may have initiated. It might also be a good way to make a professional connection? What are the norms here, if any? On the flip side, is there a way to contact those who reviewed your own work after it has been published? Again, I would only do so in a friendly manner (to continue a conversation, to thank them for good comments, etc.)

Hmm, interesting questions. I guess I worry a bit about reaching out here, it could give rise to a sense of owing the other person something in the future. But I'm not sure.

What do you all think?

Let's talk about grants

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

Can we talk about grant money?

In the US, graduate students in the humanities and philosophy in particular are not well prepared or trained in writing grants. Of course, because there is no labs or equipment to buy, research in the humanities tends to be a lot cheaper than in STEM. But it seems to be an under utilized resource, particularly given that GRA / GTA and other lines of grad student support are drying up and thus faculty with grants can step in to help. Finally, it is much more common in Europe to apply for grants, even if the humanities.

This is a great idea, especially since if I understand things right, to have any chance of getting a job in many European countries, you need to have a successful record of getting grants. Like most American grad students in philosophy (right?), I didn't receive any training in writing grants, and nowadays I wish I did.

Any tips or other helpful insights? Links to helpful resources would be great too!

When to inquire about a paper under review?

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

How many months should one wait before sending a very polite email to a journal inquiring about a manuscript's status? I realize this has probably been asked on here many times, but I've also noticed that crowd opinions on this seem to have shifted in the last 1-2 years in the wake of ever-increasing journal review times.

I think we have discussed this a few times in the past, but I'm happy to discuss it again. I usually try to stay patient, as in the past when I inquired, they were almost always quickly followed up by rejections. So, these days I prefer to simply wait. Then again, now that I have tenure, I have that kind of time, and I know not everyone does. I've also heard better things from other people who inquire.

So, what do you all think? When is it appropriate to check on a paper's status, and what's tended to happen when you have?

What's the point of the Cocoon's job-market advice?

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

I suppose I have a meta question. On the one hand, the Cocoon is an inclusive and supportive space. On the other hand, much of what goes on here is job market advice. However, the job market is inherently competitive, and so it seems to me that virtually none of the advice can truly scale: if everyone does x, then doing x doesn't give you the edge anymore. So the advice is only good if only some (not all) job marketeers follow it -- but then is this forum really meant to be inclusive of and supportive of *all* job marketeers? Isn't that something of a pragmatic contradiction?

I am putting the question in a rather, well, tendentious manner. But I mean to only be pressing the point in its most serious form, like we do in philosophy. And let me emphasize that I do not doubt the goodwill or intentions of Marcus and everybody else (including myself!) who contributes to discussions here. I suppose what I am really after is hearing how other people think about the advice they're offering in this environment.

Fair questions. To me, the Cocoon's job-market advice is for leveling the playing field and helping people compete on the market more on their merits than the "luck of the draw" they do or do not have as far as mentorship. Let me explain what I mean though a couple of anecdotes.

Journals for (history) of Africana philosophy?

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

As a graduate student working on the History of Africana Philosophy, where do you think would be good venues for me to try to publish my materials in. My sense is that I am past the implicit threshold of 'generalist' and yet must consider trying to publish as 'respectably' as possible for the job market. Any suggestions?

Do any readers have any helpful tips?

When to withdraw a paper?

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

I've had a paper with a journal that has not been able to secure external reviewers for almost four months now.

I know everyone has different tolerances for review times given their career stage, but I'm wondering if there is a general time threshold at which most people should just rescind the paper. I'm also worried this means this journal will simply never find such external reviewers.

We discussed this not too long ago here, but I wonder what people think about this particular kind of case (where it looks like a journal hasn't even been able to find reviewers after four months).

What do you all think?

Etiquette in job application materials post-PhD?

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

When I applied for jobs when finishing my PhD, I used my institutional email address and institutional letterhead in my job applications.

Now that I am in a TT position, I am not sure what email address to use (personal or institutional), nor whether to use my institutional letterhead, in my job applications.

What is the general etiquette for application materials when applying out of a professional appointment rather than a PhD program?

Apologies if this has already been answered and I've overlooked it. I can only seem to find a couple of posts addressing this, but from ~10 years ago.

Hmm... not sure I see any issues here. If you'd like to use your institution's letterhead and your professional email address, go for it. If not, then don't! Or am I missing something? 

What do readers think?

Overlap between writing sample and job talk?

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

Can there be overlap between a writing sample and a job talk? I have a paper that I want to use as a writing sample in the next cycle. I’m also working on a separate paper that applies the theory worked out in the writing sample to a specific problem, which I think is fruitfully addressed with the resources I’ve developed. Since the application paper relies on the ideas worked out in the writing sample, there will be some overlap in content.

Would it be a mistake to use the application paper as a job talk when I’ve used the general paper as my writing sample?

Of course, I would find different ways to present the ideas (different examples, perhaps different order of presentation), but one section of the talk would clearly be a compressed rehearsal of the conclusions of my writing sample. I’m unsure whether to present work that is new and what I’m currently thinking about or something older but very different to my current project (if I get the chance to give a job talk at all!).

I don't see any problem here, but I wonder whether any readers disagree.

Anyone willing to weigh in? 

Top generalist journals that publish long papers?

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

I'm trying to publish a paper of about 12,000 words. For reasons I won't go into, I'm not willing to shorten it (any further than I've already shortened it). Does anyone know which of the top generalist journals are most likely to publish a paper this long?

Nous and PPR do, as does Phil Review I think. I've found this philosophy journal wiki to be helpful.

Do any readers have any other tips?

Good experience? Grad students as journal managing editors

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

I have occasionally come across graduate students and/or other early-careers list their "managing editor" experiences, at various journals, sometimes during summers, on their CV. These strike me as potentially quite valuable opportunities -- getting to know how journals run, how reviewer comments are conveyed and responded to, the acceptance, R&R, and rejection rate, etc. (This isn't the position of regular, in-house managing editor like that at Ethics, I assume; maybe it's more "volunteer-ish" in nature -- I'm not sure.)

I haven't seen any reputable journals calling for applications/volunteers, however, for this capacity. Do they just go by invitation, or is this information available somewhere else?

I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong, but given the high volume of submissions that journals receive this sounds like a ton of work to me that might interfere with a student's ability to focus on research, teaching, etc. I know very little about what managing editors do from the outside, but from what I can tell it looks like they may check manuscripts to see if they are suitable for the journal, which seems like a lot of work. Unless it can really provide them with a helpful inside look at the publishing process that could help them learn how to publish, I worry that this may be more trouble than it's worth.

What do readers think? 

Citing conference or pre-read workshop papers?

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

Is it permissible to cite a talk you went to at a conference, even if, as far as you know, no paper version of that talk exists? How about a paper from a preread workshop? Does it matter the career stage - are the norms different if you're citing a grad student vs. someone very famous? Does it matter if you're citing in agreement or objecting to the view? Assume you're writing with the intent of submitting to journals.

Good questions. I've definitely seen conference papers cited before, as they have been peer-reviewed and presented publicly. But I'm not sure what the norms are, and workshop papers definitely seem different to me, as a workshop seems to me more like "private circulation" of a work-in-progress than a finished paper. I also wonder whether a person's professional standing makes a difference. I'd definitely be wary of citing an unpublished work by a grad-student, at least without asking first. But a talk by a well-known person at an APA? Not sure. In general, my attitude is, if there is any doubt, always defer to asking the author.

What do readers think?

Generalist journals to submit to instead of Philosophy & Public Affairs?

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

I had a paper I was planning to submit to Philosophy & Public Affairs in the next month—until the recent news came out. It seems like the perfect venue. Should I wait until September or submit it somewhere else-and if so, does anyone have a recommendation for which top generalist journals are most amenable to analytic moral and political philosophy?

Readers might be interested in this update at Daily Nous from PPA's Editor-in-Chief, Anna Stilz. It seems to me that any generalist journals would do, but I too would be curious to get readers' impressions of which generalist journals tend to be the most amenable to analytic moral and political philosophy.

Do any readers have any helpful insights?

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

I had a paper I was planning to submit to Philosophy & Public Affairs in the next month—until the recent news came out. It seems like the perfect venue. Should I wait until September or submit it somewhere else-and if so, does anyone have a recommendation for which top generalist journals are most amenable to analytic moral and political philosophy?

Readers might be interested in this update at Daily Nous from PPA's Editor-in-Chief, Anna Stilz. It seems to me that any generalist journals would do, but I too would be curious to get readers' impressions of which generalist journals tend to be the most amenable to analytic moral and political philosophy.

Do any readers have any helpful insights?