The Philosophers' Cocoon

Responding to a reviewer error after rejection?

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

Is it possible, or generally considered acceptable, to reply to a referee's comments if (i) the referee recommended rejection, (ii) the referee's recommendation was based on an obvious misinterpretation or factual error, and (iii) the journal acted on the referee's recommendation?

Background: I submitted a manuscript responding to author A, and a referee claimed that I had attributed a view to A that A does not hold. But A does hold the relevant view, and my statement of A's view is provably equivalent to A's. (Indeed, my statement of A's view is barely even paraphrased.) It was clear to me that the referee had not read the relevant passages of A's work before writing their report, even though I identified these passages for them in a footnote. I am concerned that the same referee will be invited by other journals to review my manuscript and will once again recommend rejection if they are not made aware of this error.

Good question. I seem to recall hearing of one example of someone who raised an objection like this to an editor and was able to get the editor to reconsider the rejection and send out the paper to another reviewer. But, I'm not sure whether it's generally advisable to do something like this, and I've never tried to do it myself.

What do readers think? Do any readers with relevant experience, either as authors or as editors, have any helpful insights to share?

Grappling with cross-disciplinary journals not understanding philosophical style?

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

How do you handle editors and reviewers from cross-disciplinary journals not understanding philosophical style and research (and rejecting a paper because it's more of an "opinion piece" rather than what their discipline deems "research" or because they consider the use of first-person pronouns "informal")? This is a pattern I've noticed especially among reviewers with a computer science background, but I'm sure it's not limited to them.

I've never run into this problem, but I guess my hot-take is that I'd simply try to learn and adhere to their conventions as much as is feasible. But if reviewers at a journal aren't willing to consider philosophical arguments (deeming them "opinion pieces"), then maybe the journal just isn't a good fit for the piece.

Do other readers, perhaps ones with more experience on this, have any helpful tips to share?

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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?

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? 

Do's and don'ts for responses to referees?

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

When writing cover letters for revised submissions, is there a preference for summarizing each referee comment or copy-and-pasting an entire comment when explaining the revisions made in response? Also, more generally are there any common mistakes or kiss-of-deaths made in response to comments.

Excellent question. I always quote entire referee comments, which seems to me a good way to both remind the referee of what they wrote and ensure that I address all of it. In any case, this seems more common to me than authors summarizing referee comments themselves. I'm not sure what "common mistakes or kisses of death" might be, so it would be great to hear from readers.

What do you all think? 

Publishing or withholding ideas one has as a reviewer?

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

Maybe it's just me feeling good about myself, but I try to be a responsible reviewer. On top of always submitting reviews within a week, I do my best to help the authors improve their papers. (Though sometimes I do suggest acceptance without revision, but that's more the exception than the norm.)

This has led me to this weird experience: I gave out some ideas in my report, and the paper is now R&R. But now I really want to use those ideas to start an independent paper, so I'm not sure I should have given them out in the first place. So concrete questions: a) should I withhold ideas when reviewing? b) can I still use those ideas as my own if they get published?

Hmm, this seems tricky to me. It might depend on whether publishing the ideas in question might "scoop" the author one has reviewed. You definitely don't want to get in a situation where an author for a journal you've reviewed for might think you've ripped them off or preempted some argument in their own work--and if you've suggested that they include an idea or argument in their paper and you go and publish on just that, then it seems like you run that risk. Even if the idea came from you, it also came from you reviewing their work for a journal. On the other hand, I also don't know whether I think it is right to withhold a suggestion in peer-review just because you think you might want to publish on it. So, I don't know. Again, I think a lot might depend on what the idea is and the extent to which it is based on the work of the author one is reviewing or independent of it. But in general, I think it's best to err on the side of caution to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

What do readers think?

Too many reviewer comments?

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

Has anyone had an experience where a Reviewer gave what seemed to be an inappropriate amount of comments? I know that, as an author, my only choice is basically to address them all, but I'm just curious if there are norms around this. I think the reviewer in question may be from an adjacent field, but their report contained at least 15 independent comments, many of which contained subcomments and extensive, detailed digressions into nearby literatures.

Has this happened to others? Is there a norm as to limiting comments, as many as one may have, to (I dunno) 5-8? Especially when they are very, very complex and wide-reaching?

Hmm, I don't know if this has happened to me, or whether there are norms here (though I suspect not). Even if there were a norm to only give 5-8 comments, what would prevent a referee from simply making each comment arbitrarily long, so as to fit in all of their feedback. In any case, I'm not sure how pervasive this issue is, or what might be done about it.

What do you all think?

Norms for review times in philosophy compared to other fields?

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

Can some one explain how the norms for peer review got established in philosophy? I ask because while I'm a philosopher by training, much of my research is very interdisciplinary. As a result, I'm asked to referee for both philosophy journals and journals in the sciences. Science journals typically ask for a review be completed within a week or two, whereas philosophy journals often allow for somewhere around six weeks to hand in a review. For me, refereeing a philosophy paper doesn't take more effort or time than it does to referee a science paper. Both require about the same amount of time/effort, and I generally supply a few pages of notes. This leads me to wonder why philosophy journals give so much more time. Does anyone know the history behind how these norms have been established?

Interesting questions. I don't quite recall where I came across the information, but I seem to recall seeing somewhere that peer-review tends to take longer in a variety of humanities fields compared to in science. I wonder whether there might be a few reasons for this. First, people tend to co-publish with a lot of co-authors in science compared to humanities, where people tend to publish solo--which might leave scientists more time for reviewing papers (indeed, scientists often have well-funded labs with a large number of grad students and junior faculty who collect and analyze data, etc.). Second, perhaps the quality of scientific papers is easier to judge, given the comparative objectivity of scientific methods (e.g., agreement on sound methods of data collection and analysis, etc.) compared to the humanities? Then again, maybe there's some other explanation.

What do you all think? It could be helpful to hear from people who have published in different fields to get their takes!

Handling a rude author as a reviewer?

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

Reviewers ethics. Is it OK to recommend “reject” because the author is rude? I recently reviewed a paper and recommended “reject.” However, the editor chose R&R and I got the author's revised paper and their responses to my comments. I think the paper still sucks big time, so I would re-iterate my “reject” anyway, but… I gave a lot of unvarnished-but-not-uncharitable comments on the paper. In the authors response, they make a lot of remarks that I can’t read as other than rude, e.g. “It seems that reviewer 1 has utterly failed to grasp my point… Thanks for this strange suggestion, but no…..Wow thanks a lot for this wider remark, I’ll save that topic for my next book”.

When I’m dealing with students I don’t really get upset by rudeness/tactlessness, but I still react negatively, so that they learn how is appropriate to interact with professors, etc. Is that appropriate here?, to recommend reject and leave a note along the lines of “You should remember who is doing who a favor here and be more polite, my friend.”

Interesting question, and I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks. Personally, I don't think one should reject an author's paper because they are rude. After all, an author might be rude while their paper is excellent, and our task as reviewers is to evaluate the work submitted. But, of course, in this case the OP notes that they arrived at a negative evaluation of the paper anyway, so the above case is neither here nor there in this case.

It's another question, I think, whether a reviewer should comment on an author's rudeness in their reviewer report. Here, I'm note sure. But here's a thought: most journals allow authors to submit a review to forward to the author, but also private comments for the editors only. One option here is to indicate in one's comments to the editors that the author was out of line, and to request that they say something to the author. Then again, if an author is really out of line, then maybe it does make sense to say something in one's review to them.

What do you all think?

'Major revisions' vs. 'minor revisions'

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

I am curious about the difference between "major revision" and "minor revision". I understand that journals might think of them differently. But is there any official policy or is it up to the editors? Is it just a "quantitative" difference about the amount of revisions one is expected to do, or is there any procedural difference in how the editors handle the revised manuscripts?

These are good questions, and it would be great to hear from some editors. I seem to recall that one journal (I can't remember which) equates each type of R&R with a certain type of probability judgment of eventual acceptance (e.g., 70% likely accept for minor revisions, 50%? for major revisions). At least anecdotally, it also seems to me that journals may use different procedures for each type of R&R, with journals sometimes recruiting a third referee for major revisions, versus perhaps only sending minor revisions to one referee (if the other referee recommended acceptance, or some such).

Anyway, it would be great to hear from others, particularly editors. How do you understand the difference between 'minor' vs. 'major' revisions in an R&R, and how (if at all) can editorial/review procedures differ between them?

How important is "referee-proofing" papers?

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

How important is it to make a paper "perfect" -- i.e., perfectly worded, perfectly organized, "idiot-proofed," etc. -- before submitting it to a top journal? I often spend months revising papers before submitting them, even though this doesn't improve the papers much, simply because I'm worried that the slightest blemishes will earn me rejections.

On the other hand, I've never recieved a rejection based on minutiae, and referees always have opportunities to request small changes. So, it occurs to me that these painstaking revisions may not make any difference to my chances of being accepted.

Thoughts?

Interesting questions. I guess my own sense is that, the more one publishes, the more one may get a sense of the kinds of things that referees can get hung up on, and try to avoid those things. But, as the OP notes, they don't seem to have had any rejections based on minutiae, so maybe referee-proofing isn't all that necessary?

I'm curious to hear from other readers. What's your experience? How much time and effort do you put into getting a paper as "perfect" as can be before submitting?

Concluding thoughts (Guest post by the Editors of Analysis - 4 of 4)

This is the final of four guest posts by the Editors of Analysis. The Editors' aims have been to "give some guidance to prospective authors and to contribute to public debate about philosophy publishing." In today's post, the editors respond to some of the comments in their first three posts. Many thanks to the Editors for sharing their thoughts on the peer-review process here at the Cocoon.

By Stacie Friend, David Liggins, and Lee Walters

We’re delighted that our posts have generated so much debate. A big thank you to everyone for their comments and questions! The discussion was rich and wide-ranging; we can’t do justice to it all, but here are some thoughts on some of the points raised.

Our first post was about referee reports and whether they should be aimed at helping authors or helping editors. Since a couple of commenters seem to have misinterpreted us, we’ll start by reiterating that our main point was not that lengthy reports aimed at authors take longer for us to read, but that they take longer for referees to write; and we didn’t argue that it’s impermissible to write reports like that, but that writing more, shorter reports would help with the current crisis.

In the comments, “Sometimes reviewer” made the point that it’s important to give comments if recommending a revise-and-resubmit, to help the author change the paper so it gets accepted next time. We agree! Sometimes referee reports need to be long, because the recommendation is complicated: “I recommend that you accept this paper subject to the following changes…” or “I recommend that you ask the author to revise the paper in such-and-such ways”. We like short referee reports, but sometimes reports can be too short to be helpful to an editor.

How do editors decide desk-rejections?

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

Publishing question: I am curious as to how journal editors decide whether or not to "desk reject" a manuscript. I have received many such rejections (where a manuscript is rejected without ever being sent to referees). Most times this happens the rejection does not include any feedback or comments from the editor, so I'm left entirely in the dark. On the basis of what are these decisions made? Is the manuscript actually read? Skimmed?

These are excellent questions. It would be great to hear from some editors!

Writing good responses to reviewer comments?

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

I'd love to see some advice on how to write a good response to reviewer comments. In particular, I'm wondering whether it's appropriate to explain a response to Reviewer B, for example, in part by explaining what Reviewer A requested. For example, Reviewer B suggests changes to section 1. Reviewer A suggests a change which indicates that scrapping section 1 altogether was the way to go. In responding to Reviewer B, would it ever be appropriate to explain that section 1 was scrapped because of both reviewers criticisms? Or is one supposed to restrict their responses only to what each reviewer has suggested and make no reference to the other reviewer's comments. Thanks!

Good question! One reader submitted the following reply:

Write the response for the editor - so: "because Ref1 suggested changes X and Y in Sect 1, and Ref2 suggested that Sect 1 was unnecessary, I have decided eliminate Sect 1. ..."

I wonder whether this is enough, though. If you scrap section 1 of a paper because of Reviewer A suggested it but you don't explain why to Reviewer B, couldn't Reviewer B end up puzzled? What if they don't understand why you've scrapped it and wish that you'd kept it? For these reasons, I'm inclined to think it may be best to explain changes like these to both reviewers, not just to the editor (since the editor might not forward those comments to either reviewer).

What do you all think?

The crisis in publishing – how to make it slightly less awful (Guest post by the Editors of Analysis - 3 of 4)

By Stacie Friend, David Liggins, and Lee Walters

Philosophy journals are overwhelmed with submissions. We are all aware of the problems this creates. It makes it harder for authors to get timely verdicts on the papers they submit, it makes it harder for journals to reach those timely verdicts, and it means that many potential referees are overwhelmed with requests for referee reports.

The profession needs a solution to this crisis: a better way of doing things, and a way of switching to it from the way we do things now. We admit that we have no solution. Our goal here is more modest: to make some suggestions for how to make things slightly better.

First, let’s cheer ourselves up with some ways in which philosophy journal article publishing is doing relatively well. In contrast to some other disciplines, philosophy usually uses anonymous review: either double-anonymity (where the author and referee are unaware of each other’s identities) or triple-anonymity (where, in addition, the editors don’t know the author’s identity – this is the system we use at Analysis). (Sam Andrews has compiled some data on philosophy journals’ anonymous review practices: https://pjip.carrd.co/#spread). Outside of philosophy, triple-anonymity is rare: of the four triple-anonymous journals Oxford University Press publishes, three are philosophy journals. (In case you are wondering, the fourth is the Journal of Victorian Culture.) No system is perfect, but we think that anonymous review allows editors to make more objective decisions. Also, some disciplines allow authors to propose possible referees for their journal submission. But this runs the risk of creating mutual appreciation societies. So it’s a good thing it’s not the norm in philosophy.

Now for some suggestions for making things slightly better.

Major-revisions verdicts and word limits?

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

I often find that when I receive a "major revisions" decision on a paper, what reviewers are asking me to do places me well outside of the word limit of the paper. In fact, oftentimes I purposefully excluded the information they'd like to see precisely because I needed to cut sections to meet the word limit. I'd love to see some suggestions on how to deal with this. How can I respond to all of the reviewers' suggestion without the paper ballooning to twice its initial length?

Excellent question. One other reader submitted the following reply:

I have found the best way to address these concerns is to make all changes, and then work on editing the paper down to size. I have found that when journals ask for MINOR revisions, and you make changes that take you a bit over the limit they usually do not care (in my case, NEVER care) But major revisions are a different matter - the editor is far less committed to seeing the paper accepted. They are giving you chance, so work with them, and do not push your luck by sending in a bloated paper. See the comments by the editors of Analysis: "It’s widely agreed that many papers are longer than they need to be". In my experience, this is so true. Learn to write lean.

This is interesting advice--I'd never heard that editors are likely to be more flexible with word limits for minor revisions. Do any other readers have any helpful insights or experiences to share?

What should I bear in mind when I receive a verdict from a journal? Guest post by the Editors of Analysis (2 of 4)

This is the second of four guest posts by the Editors of Analysis. The Editors' aims are to "give some guidance to prospective authors and to contribute to public debate about philosophy publishing."

It is hoped that the first three posts (including this and the previous post) will generate some discussion. Then in the fourth and final post the Editors plan to respond to some of the comments received.

Please note that the Editors will not respond to comments in this thread. But please do weigh in and discuss below - the better the discussion, the more illuminating the final response post by the Editors is likely to be!

-----

What should I bear in mind when I receive a verdict from a journal?

By Stacie Friend, David Liggins, and Lee Walters

Being a journal editor is a privilege – even if it can be a time-consuming privilege! In particular, it allows you to see the publication process from a different perspective. In this post, we’d like to draw on our experience of journal editing to offer authors some suggestions on how to understand verdicts from journals, and the time it takes journals to reach a decision. The sorts of journals we are thinking of here are busy, highly selective ones, because that is where our experience lies. Some of what we have to say will already be well known to those with more experience of the profession, but we hope it will be useful to those starting to submit journal articles for publication. We’ll close by proposing that journals should always give authors some explanation of why they chose the verdict they did.

One Paper, One Reviewer: An Easy Amelioration of the Referee Crisis (Guest post by Mahmoud Jalloh)

By Mahmoud Jalloh

The Crisis and Extant Solutions

There have been a number of posts on the blogosphere regarding what has been called a “referee crisis” in philosophy. This crisis manifests itself in long review times both due to a lack of willing reviewers and willing but slow reviewers (perhaps due to a small subset of the community being disproportionately asked to review). I will not recount (or contest) the evidence for such a crisis here. All the readers know tales of papers under review for a year, etc.

The crisis is essentially a mismatch between the supply of journal referees and demand induced by journal submissions. Some solutions have been proposed. Demand side proposals include: increasing publication rates to reduce papers in the review process (and maybe increasing the number of prizes available for prestige differentiation or maybe reducing word counts), David Velleman’s crusade to ban grad student publications, Jennifer Whiting’s slow philosophy, and radical suggestions to move towards a norm of post publication peer review (see practical and philosophical discontents). Supply side proposals include: incentivizing peer review and getting more reviewers on editors’ radars. And lest you think this problem is exclusive to philosophy—suggestions from other academic disciplines include abolishing the R&R.

What sort of referee reports does the profession need? Guest post by Editors of Analysis (1 of 4)

This is the first of four guest posts by the Editors of Analysis. The Editors' aims are to "give some guidance to prospective authors and to contribute to public debate about philosophy publishing."

It is hoped that the first three posts (beginning with this one) will generate some discussion. Then in the fourth and final post the Editors plan to respond to some of the comments received.

Please note that the Editors will not respond to comments in this thread. But please do weigh in and discuss below - the better the discussion, the more illuminating the final response post by the Editors is likely to be!

-----

What sort of referee reports does the profession need?

By Stacie Friend, David Liggins, and Lee Walters

Every professional philosopher is familiar with the problems that the philosophy journal publication system is facing. The system is simply overwhelmed with submissions, and this makes finding referees for them increasingly difficult. The situation is frustrating for everyone: for authors trying to get their papers accepted, for journal editors trying to make timely decisions, and for potential referees, who often find themselves bombarded with requests for reports.

Rejections when referees recommend R&R?

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

How common it is for journal editors to reject a paper even if the referee reports recommend an R&R? My paper got rejected from a high-profile journal but the reports had notes in the lines of "when revising, author should do X" or "If I were to revise this paper...". Recent discussion here has made it clear that appealing a decision is nigh futile; I guess I'm asking to lick my wounds more effectively.

I know it stinks as an author (it's happened to me too), but my sense is that this fairly common, particularly at journals with low acceptance rates. As one reader put it in a follow-up comment:

Remember that the referees are only offering advice. You can certainly take their advice about how to revise your paper. But the editor must balance the advice of the two or three referees. And even two R&Rs do not always lead to an acceptance or even an invitation to submit a revised manuscript. Some of his is an artefact of the size of the journal - if they do not publish a lot of article, and have many submissions, many 2XR&Rs will be rejected.

It's also worth remembering here that editors often read papers themselves to arrive at a final verdict after referee reports are received. 

Do any other readers have any additional insights to share?

Responding to a referee after a journal rejection?

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

Is there ever a point to replying to referee feedback (on a rejection) when it is mistaken? To be clear, I have no interest in questioning the rejection with the journal/editor and am submitting the manuscript elsewhere.

Briefly: had a paper rejected for a combination of reasons, one of which the editor mentioned basing the decision on specifically and which was IMO not accurate. Specifically, the referee indicated I should have consulted and used a particular example from an author's other work rather than the example I did use, when these examples are identical. The same referee also indicated that I don't engage with well-known theory X, which would be a great point except that (1) that theory and area is not germane to the topic of my paper and (2) the architect of theory X is very clear in print that the topic of my paper would not 'apply' to the theory. The comments were not particularly detailed, although two of the same referee's other comments were somewhat helpful for revision.

Is this sort of thing just par for the course?

Good question! I don't think there's any point in responding in a case like this. As another reader put it in a submitted response comment:

I would just drop it, and move on. Neither the referee nor the editor want to continue in such a discussion. The only reason to pursue it, is if you are contesting the decision of the editor. But this is most often futile. (I did successfully push back on an editor once, who rejected an R&R ... the paper has now been cited over 200 times).

Peer-review is what it is, and there will always be mistakes in the process. Way back in the day when papers were sent to journals by snail mail, my graduate advisor said he always had an addressed envelope with the next journal he would send the paper to after a rejection--and that unless the reviewers from the previous journal had really good points that needed addressing, he would just send it to the next journal without any revisions. This has always seemed to me like sensible advice. As Richard Yetter Chappell notes here, there are always objections that can be raised to just about any argument, so if you keep addressing every objection reviewers have, your paper will just grow continually longer and more unwieldy. 

So, these are my thoughts: don't waste time responding to "mistaken" referees. Instead, give referee reports a read, decide for yourself whether any revisions are necessary before submitting to a new journal, and go from there! I guess I'll just add one thing, which is that if more than one reviewer makes the same "mistake", maybe you should preemptively address it so that they future reviewers won't make the same one.

What do you all think?

When editors at a triple-anonymized journal know a paper is yours?

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

With triple-blind journals, what happens if the chief editor knows that a submitted paper is yours? I assume they don't pretend not to know, so do they defer to an associate editor, or desk reject, etc? Similarly, what if the relevant associate editor (area specialist) knows the paper is yours? I'd hope there are ways around this problem, but if not then it seems to suggest that we should avoid discussing our work with editors from journals we want to submit to, which seems rather silly.

Interesting questions. While there is presumably no foolproof way of ensuring absolute anonymity in peer-review, even at triple-anonymized journals, I wonder whether such journals have processes in place to at least mitigate this kind of problem. For example, if a managing editor, editor-in-chief, or associate editor realizes they know a paper's author, are they expected to pass on the paper to a different editor for initial review?

I'm curious to hear the inside scoop from any editors willing to weigh in!

Unusual delays in peer-review this year?

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

Are other people having huge problems with peer review this year? I keep statistics on my reviews. My average review time in 2020-2022 was 3.2 months. My average review time this year was 7.3 months. I had 2 *very short* referee reports 8 to 11 months after submission, and the editor rejected the paper based on these reviews. I had a desk rejection that took 6 months. One of my papers has been under review for 15 months now. What am I going to tell my promotion committee, "sorry it seems that everyone is busy this year and I can't get decisions on my material"?

Do other readers have similar experiences? If so, do any editors have any inside insights on what might be going on? I've seen some social media discussions where editors discuss how difficult and time consuming it can be to find willing reviewers. Has this suddenly gotten worse? If so, why?

Dismissing a reviewer's comments in a R&R?

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

I've recieved "major revision" verdict form a very good journal. This is the 2nd revision of the paper and I struggle how to proceed, because I feel that reviewer2 does not understand half of my manuscript...

He or she wrote 2 paragraphs in his/her review and I think that the proper way to address this review is just explain why all the sentences in this review are false/stupid. And zero changes in the paper.

Can I do so? Perhaps such a response will be treated as rude and my paper will be rejected?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I would work hard to try to see why the referee is saying what they are saying. You might find that you are not as clear as you think you are. If you are on the second revision, then the wind is behind you. But do try to work with the referee.

A second reader, Prof. L, added:

Likely your paper will be rejected. Here’s a way of looking at it—as it is, your paper led to someone being confused about a couple of things. Instead of blaming your reader, blame the paper. How can you make the paper so that a person (reviewer 2) is less likely to come away with those misunderstandings about your position? I get it, and have been there, but also, when I give comments to students and they say “I know that, that’s what I meant!” it’s kind of frustrating. Whether or not that’s what you think, or intend, or even what you say explicitly in a footnote, I’m letting you know in my comments that you need to be clearer about it. I imagine a reviewer who got back a “you didn’t understand” would feel the same way.

But, a third reader shared a different perspective:

I was in a very similar situation a few months earlier, although this was the first round of reviewer comments. I tried to explain as carefully and gently as I could why I thought the reviewer misunderstood the paper. I acknowledged a few places in the paper which could have led to a misunderstanding and changed them somewhat (although really this was just to please the reviewer), but I didn't make any significant changes to the reviewer's misguided objections. It is essential to be polite, so you definitely don't want to say that a claim the reviewer made was 'stupid'. This felt very bold as normally I will just do whatever the reviewers say to get the paper published! But it paid off, since in the second round of comments that reviewer said they understood much better now and only had a few clarificatory questions. Of course, your mileage may vary, but I felt this was the only way I could proceed in this situation.

I'm curious to hear what other readers think. My own experience is that, in the vast majority of cases, it's probably best to take referee comments seriously and address them in the R&R, even if you think they are mistaken, uncharitable, etc. Much earlier in my career, I tried to resist/object a few times to referee critiques, but it did not go well (I received several rejections this way). Since then, I've virtually always tried to revise papers to address the reviewers' comments ... with one exception. A few years ago, I received two reports from a very good journal, one of which was very detailed and overwhelmingly positive, but the second of which was a several-sentence long vague dismissal of the entire project. Because the editors gave me an R&R and it was clear that there was nothing that I could do to satisfy Reviewer #2, I only addressed Reviewer 1's concerns in the paper and explained, as kindly and patiently as I could in my author's reply, why I respectfully disagreed with Reviewer 2's assessment of the project. The paper was eventually published, and there was no indication that the editors sent the paper back to #2--so my guess is that they dismissed that reviewer's comments in virtue of what Reviewer 1 had to say and their own editorial review of the paper.

But these are just my experiences. What are yours?

Which criteria do you use as a journal referee?

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

I am a junior faculty member and started to receive referee requests. I am curious about people's criteria for recommendations (acceptance, minor revision, major revision, and rejection, among others).

In addition to any general thoughts, I am particularly interested in hearing your thoughts on the following two questions. First, do you take the "quality" of a journal into consideration? For example, is it reasonable to think, "this paper is not good enough for Phil Review or PPR, but for this journal, sure, it should be accepted"? I feel that this sounds pretty normal, but I also know that people do not like journal rankings. If the quality of a journal should be considered, what is your standard? Do you implicitly or explicitly follow a specific ranking such as the survey by Leiter?

Second, is there a principle that you follow when you make your recommendations? To be honest, the rejections that I received usually raised some objections to my arguments. Is it a good principle that if you can find an objection to the author's main argument, then you should (probably) reject the paper? Do you recommend direct acceptance only when you cannot find a good objection? Thank you!

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

[E]veryone follows different criteria for their verdict. But I often take the quality of the journal into account while deciding whether my comments and feedback mean accept/r&r/reject. This is not because of the quality of the paper, but because of the ratio of space available in those journals to the volume of submissions. This naturally implies a higher level of selectivity than perhaps otherwise merited. Re. how I evaluate my accept/r&r/reject verdicts: I do not take any objection to an argument to be a reason to reject a paper. A straightforward rejection usually takes me to believe that no small amount of work could salvage a novel, interesting and close-to-being-sound argument/idea from the paper. Sometimes this is an objection to the main claim of the paper and sometimes it is about how well-formulated the claim and the case for the claim in the paper are. If the paper is well-structured and interesting, but you have a prominent objection to one of the main parts of the paper, I think it usually worth giving the author to revise the paper and after the revision, if the problem is still there, then reject it (the caveats about journal rankings apply here as well).

And one other reader wrote in:

(1) I usually only really consider originality and specialisation in this. So, if I review something for the British Journal for Philosophy of Science, I recognise they are looking for groundbreaking work and am hesitant to recommend a decent and correct but not very novel paper. Or, if I review for Foundations of Physics I realise that they are more open to somewhat technical stuff than, say, Synthese. But I wouldn't otherwise make a difference in 'quality'. (2) I definitely don't think only papers without any potential objections to them deserve acceptance. The distinction I try to make is: is this an objection that should really be addressed in the paper, or is it an objection that could itself form a significant part of the literature? If it's the former, then I would urge a revision, or in some cases a rejection. If it's the latter, I am happy to accept the paper - the fact that someone else can object to it in a way that is itself of interest only proves that the paper under review pushes the literature forward in some way!

What about the rest of you? Which criteria do you use as a journal referee? And do you tailor your standards to different journal types or rankings?

 

How do editors select reviewers, and how can one review more papers?

In our August "how can we help you?" thread, Big Ben writes:

I am an early career researcher, and soon after completing my PhD, I received invites from two journals to review submissions. However, in the past one year, I have received no such invites. (although I do not have a stellar publication record, I do have a couple of articles in reasonably recognized journals.)

I would like to review more papers, but I do not know how to get invited to review one. Can someone share some tips?

More generally, I would like to know more about the method journal editors adopt in choosing reviewers (does the submission system suggest reviewers automatically based on the interests/published papers, do editors look at the bibliography of a submission and choose names, is there a cross-journal system to rate reviewers, is there a repository where one can volunteer to review, etc.)

These are both excellent queries. One reader with editing experience submitted the following reply:

One tip is to let senior people/junior people with name recognition/who work at research departments in your subfields know that you are interested in refereeing more and rarely get requests. I am an associate editor and almost all refereeing requests these days come from alternate suggestions from those who declined. And when I am making those suggestions when I decline things, I often am in a rush and just think of whoever pops into my mind most quickly and write down those names. If you make yourself salient to the people who are often turning things down, you will very likely start getting more requests. (And you shouldn't feel like you can only do this if you know the person likes your work, or anything like that--I think the bar is pretty low for what people think of as competency to review, so I think anyone you know who you feel comfortable randomly emailing would be fine!)

Another reader, an associate editor, submitted the following as well:

[A]s an associate editor (at a mid-level specialty journal), I use the following procedure: (1) if I know the area of the paper, I think of people I know of who might have something interesting to say about it. I don't spend a lot of time here, so inevitably I tend to favor people whose work I know well, either because I know them personally or because of their reputation (2) if I don't, and sometimes when I do, I use the references (3) when people selected via 1 and 2 decline, I hope to get recommendations from them for alternatives (4) if none of 1-3 work (unusual) I search the literature on my own I don't think there's much that could be done to hack this system. You'll naturally get more, and probably eventually too many, such invitations, as your networks, reputations, and citations counts grow. You could volunteer, and I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that, but it's never happened to me and so there's always a chance that someone would think it weird. If you're mainly interested in seeing early, new, work in your field, you might also contact the APA program committees; I believe (not sure) they take volunteer referees, and these papers are often more on the cutting edge than journal submissions.

Do any other readers have any other tips or insights?

Are rejection rates particularly high in philosophy?

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

Are the rates of rejection - of articles from journals, of grant applications from funding bodies, of job applications from universities - particularly high in Philosophy? Is there some data about the average number of rejected papers per published papers from other disciplines? (Or a similar statistic about grant/job applications?)

Knowing this won't change anything on ground, but the (potential) solidarity with others would help feel a bit less disadvantaged (if I actually am).

Good questions. A while back,  Eric Schliesser (Amsterdam) presented some data at Daily Nous that rejection rates at philosophy journals tend to be far higher than in other fields, and when I've shared journal rejection rates in philosophy with some people in other fields, they have been shocked at how high our journals' rejection rates are.

If the OP is looking for a little grounds for solidarity on getting lots of rejections, they may find this post by Jason Stanley of interest, as well the following recent post by Neil Levy (Oxford University) on Twitter/'X':

Phil Studies accepted the very 1st paper I sent them. They rejected the subsequent SEVENTEEN attempts. Anyway, don't be discouraged by rejection, but definitely don't tell anyone you're on a 17 rejection streak until it ends.

I'm not so sure about rejection rates for grant applications and job applications, though. I do know anecdotally that the academic job market is significantly better in some other fields (until last year, my spouse was an academic in a rapidly growing, specialized STEM field flush with job openings and not all that many applicants), but I suspect things vary a lot here depending on field. 

Do any readers have any better info on the OP's questions (on rejection rates from journals, grants, and job apps)?

Contacting an author after reviewing their paper for a journal?

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

I have some questions about the norms of contacting an author after anonymously peer reviewing their work. I recently refereed a paper that I thought was great: well-argued, interesting, and from which I learned a lot. I recommended acceptance. I'd like to talk more about some of the issues in the paper with the author if they are amenable to it. Is it appropriate to ask the editor for their name after the publication processes has shaken out? Or, once the paper is out, is it appropriate to contact the author revealing to them that I was the referee? Are there norms against this sort of revelation, such that doing so would be a breach of etiquette? Any thoughts welcome!

Fair questions, and a couple of readers submitted replies. Elizabeth writes:

Unless there's some huge rush, I'd just wait until the paper is published and contact the author about it without mentioning that you were the reviewer.

And an editor and referee writes:

You should NOT contact the author of a paper you reviewed until it is in print (or on-line at the journal site). I think that constitutes a breach of norms. Incidentally, I have had a few referees of papers of mine contact me after my paper was in print, letting me know they refereed it. Often it was someone senior, while I was quite junior. Indeed, in one case, one referee identified himself in the referee report, which the editor left in the report for me to see. This proved very useful for me, as I now knew I had strong support from someone highly respected in the field.

Both comments seem right to me. What do you all think?

What's the most common/default citation style at journals?

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

I have two related questions regarding citation styles. Nowadays, most journals do not require a specific style when you submit a manuscript, but you need to follow their styles when your paper is accepted. First, do we have a sense of the most common style of philosophy journals? (Is there a survey or summary about this?) Second, since one probably needs to send a paper to a few different journals (not at once, of course), what "default" style do people use when you write your drafts before knowing where to send them?

Good questions. I've spent way too much time reformatting citations, and would love to cut down the time I spend on them. My sense, anecdotally, is that in-text citations (APA format) may be the most common, which I find a bit frustrating, as it may be my least favorite format (I just don't like the aesthetics of how it breaks up the flow of a manuscript, particularly since my work tends to be very citation heavy). My default style is to give name/date/p. # in footnotes with a reference list at the end, though to be frank I don't even know what style this is called. I just think it looks best, but again, I have to change it a lot after acceptance.

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

Is single-anonymized review a problem?

A reader writes in,

If possible, I would like to ask you and other readers to share some thoughts about the single-blind review policy (= reviewers are aware of the author’s identity but not vice versa). Recently, I noticed that one influential journal adopted such a policy. To be honest, I do not see any benefit from this practice. On the contrary, it seems to me that it is intentionally designed to filter submissions on grounds that are not philosophically relevant. For instance, there is a strong possibility that one can get rejected based on the religious pedigree of hers/his institution, as well as one can get rejected based on the place of living/working and hers/his personal beliefs, public service, membership in some association, etc. Obviously, the same reasons that worked against someone might help someone else. I suspect some sort of snobbish gatekeeping also might be a hidden intention behind such a policy. Or am I simply missing the point?

I don't know of many philosophy journals that practice single-anonymized review, but my understanding is that it is pretty common in the sciences. Is the practice problematic? The empirical evidence suggests so. Various studies and experiments have found that disclosing authors' names in peer review has an "astonishing" influence on peer-reviewers, benefitting famous names and authors from prestigious institutions, while hindering newcomers from publishing. 

So, why is single-anonymized review still practiced at some venues? Proponents may argue that single-anonymized review has some advantages, particularly in the sciences (where reviewers may be able to spot conflicts of interest, for example), and that so long as other forms of peer-review are practiced, including at other journals, then diversity in peer-review practices may be a good thing--particularly if authors can always choose to send their work to double or triple-anonymized journals. 

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

Philosophy Journal Insight Project

Sam Andrews (University of Birmingham) writes in:

I lead the Philosophy Journal Insight Project [pjip.carrd.co]and believe that it might be of interest to readers at the Philosophers' Cocoon. 

The main resource of the project is a spreadsheet that provides a comprehensive overview of around 50 philosophy journals. It contains:

1) Standardisation of key information about journal submission; word counts, peer review anonymity, open access status, etc.

2) Collection of journal rankings from blogs and ranking sites; Leiter Rankings, SJR Rankings, SNIP Rankings, etc.

3) Estimates drawn from journals and APA surveys for acceptance rates, comment chance, average days for a desk rejection, average days for external review, etc.

4) Compilation of various impact statistics; total citations, CiteScore percentile, etc.

The site also contains a resources section that links to various places relevant to journal submission.

This is great service to the profession. Do check it out!

Incorporating your previous work as assumptions in a paper without violating anonymity?

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

Let's say I'm working on topic X. I have a novel interpretation of Y, which is related to X, and I published a paper defending this interpretation of Y. In my new paper on X, I want to assume this interpretation of Y. How to do this without violating anonymity? Here are my thoughts:

- I can just cite myself as a third party, explain the view briefly, and then say that I will assume this view. But I think this approach would not realistically protect anonymity since I'm a very early career person, and no one is going to assume my views except for me.
- I can briefly explain the interpretation without citing myself. But this raises worries like: "this interpretation needs much more work to get off the ground" or the claims like "this view is already defended in an earlier paper that the author isn't aware of." So honestly, I don't know what to do.

How do you incorporate your published work into a new paper without violating the rules of anonymized peer review?

These are good questions--in fact it's an issue that I've run into many times myself, both as an early-career scholar and now as a mid-career scholar. While I've heard from many it's best to cite oneself in the third-person to preserve anonymity, this doesn't help all that much in a paper where one is primarily building on other work one has published previously. 

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I think you should worry about what you do assume in a paper if, as you note, "no one is going to assume my views except for me". Assumptions in philosophical papers are to be widely accepted (hence, widely held). Alternatively you can just say, I will assume "...". But if the assumption is not granted by the referee, then the paper is unlikely to be accepted.

I don't think this is exactly right. Assumptions don't have to be widely held to be legitimate to invoke in a philosophical argument; what they need to be is to be defended. But still, the practical problem here is real: if you're the only one who has defended the relevant assumption(s), then, particularly if you're early-career, any referee is likely to suspect that you're the author of the previous paper defending them.

So, what to do? Do any readers have any helpful tips? 

Rejecting a paper based on one report by a referee that previously reviewed the paper?

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

A top 10 generalist journal rejected a manuscript of mine on the basis of one referee report. The one referee said that they had rejected an earlier version of my manuscript elsewhere. I know that editors can have a hard time finding referees, but should editors base rejections on reports provided by one such referee?

This is a good question. I've seen a few conversations about this topic before on social media, and I'm curious to hear what people think. Personally, given just how much different referees can disagree over the merits of a given paper, I'm inclined to think that journals should give authors a chance with new reviewers who haven't reviewed it before. Then again, I'm not a journal editor, so I don't know how feasible this is as a general rule.

What do you all think?

Going over a journal's word-limit in an R&R?

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

Do revise-and-resubmits have to respect the same initial word limit? Or is there some leeway (10% over?)?

Good questions. I've heard anecdotally that it can be fine to go a little over a journal's limit, and another reader submitting the following reply:

yes, add 10% in the R&R ... I have done it ... but it should be done because one is addressing concerns of referees.

Still, it might be good to hear from other readers. I did it for the first time recently, with a paper that was ultimately accepted at a good journal. But in general, I like to avoid anything (like going over a limit) that might give referees or editors an excuse to reject, so for the most part I try to stick to word-limits.

What say you all? Do you go over word limits in R&Rs? If so, is 10% a good rule of thumb? Or, has this backfired for anyone?

Journals using "initial" review prior to peer-review?

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

When I submitted a paper to BJHP last Fall, the paper got rejected after receiving an initial review before being sent out for peer review. I got some helpful feedback from the initial reviewer (who isn't the editor). I wonder if there are other journals that adopt this practice of sending submissions for an initial review before the peer review.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I am puzzled ... why do you say it was not peer reviewed? If someone other than the editor looked at the paper then it was peer reviewed. Am I missing something? Sometimes journals do give authors decisions with only ONE referee's report - in fact, I am a quick reviewer, and I have noticed that some of the journals I have reviewed for have made decisions on the basis of my report only (and the editor's judgment). If one report contains enough information to form a sound judgment, then an editor may choose to reject the paper on that basis (especially if they have not managed to secure a second referee).

As a matter of fact, I think this second commenter is missing something. In the past year or so, I have begun to receive a kind of referee request that I had never received before: requests by journals to give an "initial review" of a submission to determine whether the paper should be sent out to referees for a full review. In these requests (which I have received from two or three different journals), I am explicitly asked to decide not whether the paper should be published, but rather whether it should be sent to referees. Further, it's noted that in making a recommendation, I may elect to provide comments but that I don't need to: all the journal wants is to know whether to send the paper to referees.

So, it seems, some journals may be adopting a new practice that functions something like "desk review" by journal editors. For my part, I can't help but wonder whether this practice may be a result of journals being overwhelmed with new submissions (see here), one aim being to provide quicker verdicts for papers.

Do any readers have the "inside scoop" on what's going on here? Also, what do readers think of this practice, as described above? I guess I sort of find something attractive about it, as it may more widely distribute the "gatekeeping" function of desk review at journals beyond just a few editors. On the other hand, it might incentivize more rejections without comments. But again, this is mostly just speculation, as I'm not entirely sure how these initial reviews function (do editors also read the paper?). Anyway, I'm genuinely curious!

Crowdsourcing review times for specialist journals?

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

I am aware of a couple of crowdsourced web pages for data on average journal review times and other relevant stats for early career people trying to get a feel for where they should and shouldn't send things off if they're hoping for a semi-reasonable turnaround. There are plenty of "specialist" journals, though, that don't end up on those lists, particularly those that intersect with the sciences. I think it could be really helpful to get a thread going in which people can share links to any such journal database pages that they're aware of (including pages for interdisciplinary journals!). I personally didn't find out about these things until well into grad school, and wish I had earlier. I think this would also be a great way of increasing the accuracy of these sources (by increasing submission #s) and slightly minimizing the extent to which success at early stages in this profession hinges on knowing the "right" people with this sort of insider info!

This is a great query. Another reader wrote in:

I'm not sure that there's any other page than this one: https://apasurvey.philx.org/ Seems pretty active.

While to my knowledge that is probably the best page for journal turnaround times, there's at least one other crowdsourced page for other journal stats here.

I highly encourage readers to contribute to it, filling in info for missing journals!

Does anyone know of any other/better pages for philosophy journal info?

Do PhD students at unranked programs get a fair shake in peer review?

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

In the opinions of Editors of Journals (who decide on whether a paper moves to reviewers), what are the chances of a paper coming from Ph.D. students from "unranked" or not top 50 schools getting to the reviewers? That is, do editors automatically desk reject papers from grad students they haven't heard of or universities that aren't top 50? I ask because this seems to be the sentiment amongst the grad students from these "lower" ranked schools. And it seems to be supported by anecdotal evidence and conversations between students from varying schools and their prestige. If this is true, I doubt the editors of the "good" journals will admit to it, but worth asking.

I would by surprised if editors would automatically reject papers by anyone, and some journals practice triply-anonymized review, in which case no one knows the identity of a submitting author. On the other hand, some journals are only doubly-anonymized, in which case editors may know who the author of a submitted paper is--and it's always possible for bias to come into play when a person's identity is known. In any case, I wouldn't know how to gather good evidence one way or another about this issue aside from asking authors who are from unranked or low-ranked programs whether they get referee reports and/or publish in journals.

Do any editors or authors with experience here care to weigh in on this?

Norms for checking on the status of conditional acceptances?

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

Are the norms for emailing an editor to inquire about a submission's status any different for minor revisions/conditional acceptances than they are for initial submissions? Is it appropriate to email after just three months, say, if you still haven't heard back about a conditional acceptance?

I would think the norms are the same as for any submission. If three months have passed, you can always write to check on the status. But these are just my thoughts. 

What are yours?

Times of the year when peer review is quicker/slower?

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

Are there periods of time throughout the year when the journal peer-review process is either quicker or slower?

I suspect, at least anecdotally, that peer-review tends to be quickest during the summer, when many faculty do not have teaching duties, and slowest during the end of fall and spring terms (when people's grading loads are highest). But, of course, this is just anecdotal speculation, and moreover, there are substantial differences in when academic terms begin or end across different institutions, countries, and hemispheres. So, I'm not sure!

Does anyone have any helpful insights? It could be great to hear from journal editors and reviewers!

When to withdraw a paper?

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

When is the time to withdraw a paper from a slow publisher and look for a better venue elsewhere? I have agreed to write a paper for a collection of essays that the editors just keep pushing back further and further.

I agreed to write the paper in the spring of 21, submitted it in the fall of 21, and have been waiting ever since. Every couple of months, I ask the editors for an update, and they always tell me that something came up, but that the book will be finished soon.

On the one hand, I'm frustrated, but on the other hand, I also don't want to withdraw my paper and create new problems for the editors and the other authors who maybe need the publication more than I do. But after a year and a half of waiting, I'm starting to become anxious.

I think a year and a half is an absurd amount of time. I'd withdraw after 6 months or so, at least after a few emails to the editors to check on the status. As an author and reviewer, I value professionalism, and I don't think absurdly long review times are professional. So, if I were the OP, I'd withdraw now and submit somewhere else that has a better reputation for good turnaround times.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Journals with good turnaround times?

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

About journal reviewing times:

I heard that the reviewing process is taking longer and longer in the last fewer years. As a PhD who is eager to get papers published, I was wondering whether there are mainstream and generalist journals that are known to have relatively short turnaround times for the reviewing process.

I have an impression that Synthese is reliable in this respect. On its website(https://www.springer.com/journal/11229) it says the median is 82 days from “Submission to first decision”; although this information is probably outdated.

For those who have more experience or inside information on this: are there journals that are particularly efficient in this respect? Are there mainstream journals that I should avoid?

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I just wanted to point your (and everyone else's) attention to the APA Journal Survey Project, which has a lot of data on review times: https://apasurvey.philx.org/. And of course you can help each other by submitting your own data!

The APA Journal Survey Project is a good resource, but does anyone know how up to day the information is? Also, while I'm happy to have people post below on their experiences journals with good turnaround times, I don't know how comfortable I am with people posting on journals with bad turnaround times (as blog comments are hearsay, and negative comments could hurt a journal's reputation, which could give rise to problems for me as blog moderator and administrator).

In any case, if you have had any good recent experiences with journals giving quick decisions, feel free to post on them below!

Inquiring about the status of journal submissions

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

I am sure there are topics on this, but it never gets old: how long after the submission is it appropriate to reach out to a journal to inquire about the status of the submission? 2 months? 3 months? 6 months? Is there any difference in norms relative to journals?

I'm pretty sure that we've discussed this on previous occasions, but it could still be good to take people's temperature on this again. Personally, I think I'd probably wait 6 months. The average turnaround time for many journals seems to be 2-4 months, so asking within that timeframe might not have much of a point. Then again, different journals have different average turnaround times (sometimes listed on their website), so maybe go by that?

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Putting papers in progress on one's website?

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

What's the risk of putting the titles of one's "in progress" or "under review" papers on one's website? Sometimes I'll see a website where someone has replaced the title of their paper with something to the effect of "title redacted for review". And sometimes they'll even redact the titles of presentations on their CV (if they have a paper under review with the same title). But redacting titles of papers and presentations is a pain. So what's the risk?

Is the thought that reviewers might discover your identity and form biases? If so, are some authors more likely than others to suffer from deanonymization? Might those who study or work at prestigious institutions, or who have excellent publication records, even benefit from a positive presumption after deanonymization?

Good questions. What do you all think?