The Philosophers' Cocoon

What should grad students expect from dissertation advisors?

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

I am an ABD student. My question is what our expectations from dissertation advisors should be? My advisor reads the drafts and gives feedback. He is also ready to meet and discuss whenever I need. But that is pretty much it. Should I expect more from an advisor? Should I expect him to introduce me to other professors in other universities or invite me to certain conferences he attends? Should I expect him to do networking for me? I attended a few conferences where my advisor was also present. But he never introduced me to his colleagues from other universities or told them that I was his student.

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

Your advisor is advising your dissertation. Networking is (mostly) up to you. Nevertheless, you can advocate for yourself a little. Say “hey, I will be at that conference, too! I would love to be introduced to some people there, if you can make the time to do that” or “I feel like I’m making good progress on my dissertation … if someone requests a book review/comments/etc from you in my area that you want to decline, I would be happy to get one of those under my belt” and so on. I think it’s not really an obligation or part of advising, but it is helpful if an advisor or others at your grad institution advocate for you in these more informal ways. I wouldn’t be too pushy about it, but a little reminder or suggestion might go a long way.

It would be great to hear from other readers. What did your dissertation supervisor do? Did they just read and discuss drafts? Or, did they do more than that? And what do you think dissertation supervisors should do?

Using an R&R as a writing sample?

A reader writes in:

I wanted to ask a question about writing samples on the academic job market. First, I suspect that using a paper that has a revise and resubmit status (that is still under review) from a solid journal would be fine, but is it prudent to share with the committee that it's under review or has an R&R status? For instance, is it prudent to have a note at the top of the paper that says "This paper received a major revision from Journal X and is currently under review" The only issue I see is that one of the committee members is a reviewer but that seems unlikely. 

What do you think? 

Good question. I've wondered about this too, and about even listing R&Rs on one's CV.

Is it worth it to risk violating anonymized review? What do you all think?

Writing a lukewarm letter of recommendation?

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

It's the season of writing recommendation letters. I'd really like to have advice on how to approach writing lukewarm / weak letters of recommendation for job candidates, especially if you're junior yourself and don't have the option of declining writing the letter.

Hmm, not sure. I'm generally inclined to think that if you can't write a good letter, then you should probably decline. But the OP says they don't really have the option to do that. I wonder why, though? Doesn't one always have a choice? However, if you do need to write a lukewarm letter, I guess you should be honest? I suspect it's probably also good practice to let the candidate know that your letter won't be uniformly positive, just to give them the option of declining the letter.

What do you all think?

Contacting a faculty member of a hiring department as a job applicant?

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

I have a question related to applying for TT jobs. When is it appropriate to contact faculty members of a department you're applying to? I'm planning to apply to a department where I have met one of the senior faculty. I don't know them well, but we hit it off at a small conference. Is it appropriate to reach out and let them know I'm applying? Ask for their advice? Or would this come off as tactless, presumptuous, or craven?

Fair questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

You need to be clear on what you hope to achieve by contacting this person? Anything you write in e-mail, etc. may have to be disclosed by the faculty member. And even if you want more information about the position, the ad often says explicitly who you should contact. If it is not that person, then you really should not be contacting them. Finally, if you decide to mention the person and your nice experience with them in your cover letter, you may find other faculty members will rank you lower (if, for example, they do not like the colleague you know). So get clear on what such contact is going to achieve.

What do you all think? It would be especially helpful to hear from search committee members!

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?

Accepting one fellowship but leaving for another?

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

Here is a hypothetical situation: you apply for more than one postdoctoral fellowships with proposals on distinct topics, get selected in one, and accept the offer. After you join, the other fellowship, which is way better than the first (e.g., gives you more freedom to conduct your own research without interference, provides funds for conference travel and to organize workshops, etc.) comes through.

What do you do? Do you simple leave the first one for the second one, which may mean that the employer may have to go through the whole process of recruiting again, or worse, they may not hire anyone else for the position? How much do the employer's feelings matter? Are there questions answerable?

Good questions, and I'll be curious to hear what everyone thinks. The general consensus on similar topics discussed here in the past (e.g., leaving one job for another) seems to have been that employers don't have any right to your employment, and it's fine to do what's best for one's career. Also, given that fellowships are temporary and the OP is presumably still after permanent academic employment, if the second fellowship seems more advantageous than the first in terms of flourishing in their career, then why not move?

But these are just a few quick thoughts. What are yours?

Publishing and invited talks: a dilemma?

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

I find myself uncertain of certain norms and would appreciate guidance. I'm a few years into a tt job and have started to be invited to give talks semi-regularly. Often I have a piece that is semi-ready, so a few months out I frantically start trying to polish it up. But then, once I feel it is in good enough shape to give a talk, I face a conundrum. Do I submit it for publication, or wait until after I have given the talks? I'm not so secure in my tenure prospects that I feel comfortable not having pieces under review. But I worry there is a chance (however small!) that the paper could be accepted before some or all of the talks. My sense is that the norm is that you shouldn't give talks on pieces that are already published. But what I would then be left with is really underdeveloped things, and I also don't feel like I'm at a stage in my career where I feel comfortable waltzing into a talk with a super unpolished bit of work (maybe I never will be or should be!) To submit or not to submit? And what to do if an article were to get accepted? (And yes I know the real answer is probably "have multiple pretty polished pieces ready and/or cooking at any given moment" but sometimes I just....don't)

Fair questions. My sense is that it's just fine according to prevailing norms to send papers to journals and give talks on them at the same time, and that if a paper is accepted, it's still fine to give a talk on it if it wasn't accepted at the time one accepted an invitation (in most cases, the paper will probably be forthcoming rather than published, right?). My sense is that this kind of conundrum probably doesn't happen all that often, given journal rejection rates--so it's probably not worth worrying about all that much. On the flip side, giving a bad talk on an underdeveloped piece may come across poorly, so if one wants to feel good about the talks one gives, my sense is that it's probably best not to give underdeveloped talks. Then again, who among us hasn't seen (or been givers of) talks like these? Sure, the speaker might look a bit bad, but if they otherwise publish good work, I suspect people may simply chalk it up to being a work in progress. One can always say this too up front at a talk, right? An audience may be a bit more forgiving if they are given this kind of heads up. Or maybe not. 

What do you all think?

Publishing replies to papers by senior figures while in grad school?

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

I am a PhD student with qualms about writing a reply to a recent paper that I have found both very engaging and in many respects objectionable. The "problem" is, this paper is published in a reputable journal and penned by quite a reputable mid-to-late-career author. The journal accepts replies to published pieces, and I believe in my ability to write something of value. Yet I am very uncertain whether it is wise and/or prudent to engage in this debate due to clear disbalance of seniority. Usually, replies to articles seem to be authored by scholars who have a standing / are somewhat known in the subfield.

I wonder what is the general consensus on this matter. Are my intuitions completely wrong? Should PhD students feel free to publish replies to senior colleagues?

I don't see any reason not to publish a reply. If you think the paper by the senior figure is mistaken, go for it! This is what philosophy is about, right? We give and respond to each other's arguments. If anything, I suspect a good reply to a reputable senior figure in the field would reflect well on the author. Sure, maybe the senior figure might not like the reply, but that's life, right? What power do they have over one's career?

I guess the only thing that I would recommend is that if the OP finds the figure's paper "in many respects objectionable", it's probably wise to make sure that they compose the paper in a way that engages with the author's arguments respectfully. When one finds an argument objectionable (particularly if one finds it morally objectionable), it's possible that one may be tempted to engage in heightened rhetoric in the paper, which I suspect would not come across well to reviewers, editors, or readers.  

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Advice on how to best use TAs?

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

I will be teaching a large undergraduate ethics class (120 students) this Fall and have been assigned 2 TAs. The class meets on M-W-F. This is my first time teaching a class with more than 40 students and my first time having any TAs.

Does anyone have any advice on how to distribute the work between my 2 TAs? My department told me previously that I can have a TA teach on Friday. Do readers recommend having both TAs teach together on Fridays? Alternate? Or have only 1 do the teaching and the other do grading? Or some other combination?

I would really appreciate advice on how to fairly distribute the work. Each TA can do 20 hours of work a week.

Thank you in advance.

I only had TAs for one year about 15 years ago, so I'm not a particularly good person to offer advice here. One reader submitted the following reply:

Congratulations. First, employ the TAs effectively, and do not exploit them. So figure our how they can help you collectively teach the course effectively. The only reason to have them give lectures is if you believe that having a different lecturer would enhance the course. And if you have them lecture, do not have them lecture on the same day. Second, if you have them do grading (which you will), split it evenly. And it may be worth your while to grade some portion of the assignments, etc. so you know what the quality of the student work is. But whatever you do, make every effort to convey to the tutors that the three of you are team teaching the course - working together on the same larger goal.

Do any readers who have more experience with TAs have any helpful tips or advice?

Do requirements to publish open-access continue after funding ends?

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

For people who have had funding that requires open access publication, does that requirement continue (for work undertaken partially or in full) after the funding ends? And if so, is it usually possible to access financial support from the original funder for open access publications?

In my case I was AHRC (UK) funded for my phd, and that required publishing open access. Now that my phd is over and my funding finished, am I still required to publish open access for work undertaken as part of the phd? I have two chapters of the thesis which could form the basis of a publication, but would look significantly different to the original work. I don't want to upset funders, but also don't want to hold back work from publishing in good venues because of this.

I'm not well-acquainted with this kind of situation, as this kind of situation seems to be more common outside of the US, and in any case I've never had to deal with it personally. But, if there was some kind of contract associated with the funding, wouldn't relevant provisions in the contract provide answers? 

Do any readers have any helpful tips or other insights for the OP?

Taking part in an "inside search" (pretenure)?

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

Suppose one is pre-tenure and has been asked to participate on a hiring committee for a job specifically created for a person already at the institution who is in a temporary position. This fact--that the job is "for X" is widely known and openly discussed at faculty meetings. Yet, per institutional requirements, there is an ad and a search. There is virtually no chance anyone outside will get the job but making a stir about this without tenure seems foolhardy. So does voting for one of the (potentially better) outside candidates who applies.

What should one do?

I don't know. My sense is that there are inside candidates or favorites in many industries, but also, that these candidates don't always get the job, including in academia. I've heard anecdotally that search committees may begin a search strongly favoring an inside candidate, but then end up selecting another candidate that they take to be better in the end. In any case, I've never been in this kind of situation, and the ethical issues seem like ones that reasonable people may disagree over. As for legal issues, I'm not entirely sure what the law holds here, including what protections there may or may not be for whistleblowers on an issue like this.

What do you all think? Do any readers have any helpful tips, experiences, or other insights to share?

Working in philosophy of religion and seeking R1 jobs?

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

I am a PhD student with an interest in philosophy of religion. A professor recently advised me not to publish anything with religious content unless and until I receive tenure, since (in his experience) hiring committees heavily discriminate against religious people.

I have two worries about this advice. First, I doubt I will be very happy or productive if I do not write about philosophy of religion, at least occasionally. (I am interested in lots of other kinds of philosophy, but none so much as philosophy of religion.) Second, I have already published in philosophy of religion. (To make things worse, the relevant papers are -- horror of horrors -- arguments for theism.) So, it might be too late for me.

I used to think that allegations of anti-religious discrimination in philosophy were overblown, but reading this blog -- in particular, reading comments from posters who seem to regard religious people as their moral inferiors, or unfit to be their colleagues -- has changed my mind. I am quite worried about how this state of affairs could affect my family. (This also makes me worry that any hesitancy on my part to publish in philosophy of religion would be due to cowardice.)

What do you all think about this? I should emphasize that I am aiming for a research job at an R1 university, not a teaching job at a religious college. (I am aware that the odds of landing such a job are prohibitively long, but I am aiming for one anyway.)

I'm not sure that I have good answers to this question. I know some very good philosophers who work in philosophy of religion (including, I think, some who work at R1s), and I guess my sense is that there are some R1s (Notre Dame?) where work in philosophy of religion would be welcomed. I guess I may also have some faith in my fellow philosophers that, while there may of course be some people who are biased against those who work in philosophy of religion, there are others who aren't. 

Anyway, I guess my (rather unhelpful?) advice to the OP is: do whatever work is true to yourself, and let the proverbial cards fall where they may. It's a complex world that we live in where people have all kinds of biases, there's not a lot one can do to endear oneself to everyone, and compromising one's integrity as a person or philosopher seems bad. Some people may discriminate against kinds of philosophy they don't like, but other people may be inclined in your favor, particularly if the work itself is good.

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?

Journal citation styles vs. authorial sensibilities & accessibility

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

Something I've recently encountered is editors and copy editors insisting that footnote citations be moved to the main text. This offends my aesthetic sensibilities and strikes me as unduly infringing on author style: other things equal, I strongly prefer philosophy papers with main text that is just doing philosophy over those that go back and forth between philosophy and scholarship throughout the main text. I also listen to a lot of philosophy papers and much prefer listening to ones that confine citations to footnotes. (After hearing one or two citations, I tend to get distracted and have to go back or miss parts of the paper. I can avoid this problem when citations are in footnotes by skipping the footnotes. In contrast, I don't know of any easy way not to listen to citations that are in the main text.) It occurred to me that it might be easier to persuade editors and copy editors not to insist on moving citations to the main text if there were a discussion to point to in the profession that acknowledges confine-citations-to-footnotes as a legitimate writing style with accessibility advantages.

I'm curious to hear what readers think. An editor submitted the following reply:

The issue you raise, as I understand it, is not one of author style - it is one of journal style. Journals and book book publishers have house styles, and they want all the pieces in an issue or a volume to have the same style. So the price an author pays to be published in these issues or volumes is to cite according to the journal or publisher style. I think it is reasonable, but I work for Dark side - I am a journal edited and the editor of a few edited volumes with CUP.

And Malcom submitted the following:

On footnote citations: it sounds like what "a postdoc" is talking about is a preference for author-date style over notes and bibliography, as CMOS distinguishes the systems (see chapter 14 for detail). The editors and copyeditors enforcing these citation styles are probably not in a position to change the requirement for a single author contributing to a journal, since the house style has been set already. Books are a different matter, and there often can be some flexibility there. Part of copyediting involves enforcing consistency, which is why a single citation style is (typically) preserved across issues of a journal. Author style is something that should be respected, however, citation style isn't typically considered part of this. The other points are more substantive and perhaps controversial: the distinction between "doing philosophy" and "scholarship" in this context isn't one I agree with. Citations are part of how we give evidence for claims, for instance, and so are not easily partitioned off from "doing philosophy." To the point about listening to audio of papers: in discussions of endnotes over footnotes, some have made a similar criticism, that footnotes interrupt the reading (since they are read between pages, often interrupting sentences). I think the points about accessibility are ones that we should consider in the profession--however, for those who want to hear the citations immediately (because they want to know the sources for claims, etc.), wouldn't moving citations to the end impact their accessibility negatively? It seems like the solution may be more technological, allowing hearers to access the text in the ways they prefer, than about uniformly enforcing notes and bibliography over author-date.

I have to confess that I'm a bit sympathetic with the OP. As an author and reader, I much prefer footnote citations to in-text citations or endnotes. I also have to confess that changing citation formats is one of my biggest pet peeves, as I've never learned how to use a citation program that enables one to switch formats easily (though I've heard that ChatGPT can make these kinds of changes swiftly, so I'm curious to try that). I understand that journals and book publishers have house styles, but I'm curious to hear what readers think about this.

Should publishers be more flexible with authors in this regard, letting authors choose their favored citation format? And what about accessibility concerns? What do you all think? 

Leaving a publication off a CV to avoid prejudice?

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

Before getting a PhD in philosophy, I did an MA in a different subject (related to religion) and got a publication in that area. This topic no longer characterized my interest or personal convictions - and given some recent discussion on this website, it seems it could evoke some prejudice in search committees. Would it be dishonest to simply remove this publication from a CV used for philosophy jobs?

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

you do not have to list anything on your c.v. To be completely honest, you can even use the label "Selected publications", which many people use, especially if they have a lot of publications (50+). But do not kid yourself ... we do not leave our past selves behind. I was involved in a job search where a colleague-troll found an unlisted publication of an otherwise promising applicant that she objected to. It sank his ship. The trolls are everywhere ... and the web ensures that one cannot hide their past.

I'm inclined to think that listing "Selected Publications" on the CV is probably fine, but I don't agree with the claim "you do not have to list anything on your c.v.". A CV is supposed to be a record of one's professional accomplishments, and if you simply leave things off that a hiring committee or university administrators may find relevant (since they have to sign off on new hires), then they may take that to be an act of dishonesty if they find out later, and who knows what the repercussions of that may be. In fact, I know of at least one philosopher in the distant past who was fired from their job after it was discovered that they were dishonest on their CV, so I don't think it's worth risking that. 

Anyway, I'm not sure what the thing to do here is. If the OP simply lists "Selected Publications", then (as the commenter above implies) that could lead search committee members to do some digging, and if they find the publication in question, then that could blow up in the OP's face as well (indeed, it could even look like the OP is trying to hide their philosophical/ideological commitments to get hired). So, what to do? I guess I'm sort of inclined to think that the OP might be best served by addressing the issue openly in a cover letter, saying something to the effect of, "In my distant past, I worked in religion and published an article that no longer represents my interests and personal convictions, so my CV only lists selected publications." But, of course, this too might have unintended consequences. As the commenter above notes, leaving one's past behind is difficult, and it's always there on the web for an interested party to dig up.

So, I'm really not sure what the best thing to do here is. What do you all think?

Increases in investigating academic misconduct due to chatGPT?

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

My employer uses turnitin and asks us to investigate every single case where turnitin shows any percentage of assignments being generated by AI. I think this has gotten a bit out of hand despite constantly warning my students about the policy. (Student who have something detected also tend to conclude their assignments with “some experts say X some experts say Y and this is an important issue so we need to investigate further and have more discussions.”)

I think this has substantially increased my workload and that of the casual staff who works with me. Is this getting more common? How have others dealt with the increased workload and potential unpaid work of casual staff?

Good questions. I haven't had a major surge in investigations or made any major changes to how I teach yet yet, but I spoke to friend recently who has who told me that they are now simply having students do all of their work by hand in class. 

What about the rest of you? Have you experienced a big surge in academic misconduct cases because of AI? If so, how are you dealing with it? And either way, if you have experienced a surge or not, have you adopted any teaching strategies to prevent AI-based misconduct?

Norms for expressing gratitude to advisors after completing a dissertation?

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

What are the norms (in the US) for expressing gratitude to your dissertation advisor/dissertation committee upon completing your dissertation? A handwritten card seems appropriate. Should you give a small gift as well?

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply: 

The important thing is to keep the relationship professional. Where I worked before (in the USA), we had an awkward situation where students from some countries would give professors expensive gifts as they left an exam 8in the Business School) - quite expensive bottles of wine, etc. This is wholly inappropriate in the USA, especially at a public university, even if it would be expected in tehir home country. The greatest gift you can give a supportive professor is to have a great career yourself - if you publish a book in 10 years, and your feelings are still really warm, then send them a copy of the book.

Do any other readers have any helpful tips?

HR policies: can search committees give job-candidates feedback?

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

Are search committees really constrained by HR policies from saying nothing to candidates about why they didn't get a position?

How are candidates supposed to improve their performance without any feedback?

I understand the catch all term 'fit,' meaning that sometimes its not really anything about the quality of a candidate--its just that another candidate fit the needs of a department better.

But surely there is *something* a candidate could have done differently.

Its so frustrating to get nothing from search committees when you follow up--you either get silence or you get boiler plate BS.

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

When I worked at a state university there came a time in the 1st decade of the 2000s that universities became extremely concerned about litigation. First, resolving issues in court is costly (even out of court, if they are threatened with litigation). Second, it is bad for public relations - and thus recruitment. The universities that are now in financial distress are all dealing with shortfalls in recruiting students. So university administrators decided that they would take aggressive measures to avoid litigation. The trouble with hiring is that faculty would occasionally say things that were inappropiate and would lead to further inquiries that hinted at litigation. How do we stop this? We forbid faculty from speaking at all. I am not a US citizen, so I saw this as just part of American culture. It is distressing, but it is not going to change any time soon.

Do any other search committee members, administrators, or others with inside experience care to weigh in? Also, if SCs can't give candidates feedback, what should people like the OP do to improve their performance on the market?

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 on job-market after getting a TT job: how soon is too soon?

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

How soon is too soon to apply to another TT job after getting one? I was blessed with the good fortune of receiving a TT job. How long do I need to stay in the job before applying elsewhere? Even if I like it, there are jobs I'll like more: it seems like sending off a few applications per year would be the smart thing to do, when particularly desirable jobs for my profile come up. Would it be OK to move on after say only one year?

Fair question! We actually had a thread related to this back in January, and while we didn't receive too many comments, the general sentiment (which I share) is: it's your career--no one has a right to your employment. As another reader writes in a submitted follow-up comment to Cam:

On the one hand, you are always on the job market. Everyone should be open to changing jobs throughout their lives. In fact, each of us may need to at some point. But, on the other hand, do not think that you will endure yourself to your new colleagues by going on the market. In fact, if they get wind of the fact that you are applying to "more desirable" places it will just reinforce any thoughts they might have had that you were a flight-risk. So be aware of that. It is can hard to hide that you are looking for a job. One former colleague discovered that a junior colleague was on the job market because the photocopier jammed on the weekend, trapping pieces of her applications in the machine until Monday, when my colleague found them.

While I think it is generally unlikely that your colleagues will find out that you are on the market, it's a risk, but one that one can probably mitigate by exercising due care!

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

Self-plagiarism, or building on previous ideas?

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

I am writing a short article for an anthology. Because of the length limit, I cannot fully develop some ideas and arguments. However, I still want to include many or even most of them. Will it be appropriate if I write a separate and longer paper later that basically includes the same ideas but develop them in detail? Or will this be a case of self-plagiarism? I think see some "famous" philosophers doing this sometimes, but I wonder what would be a good rule of thumb here.

At least offhand, this doesn't sound inappropriate, but maybe it depends on how much one develops the relevant ideas or arguments in the anthology chapter? I do know that many journals require authors to attest that papers are original and haven't been previously published "in whole or in part" (or some such). So, perhaps if the ideas are fleshed out in some detail in the anthology paper, then defending them again at greater length might run afoul of this standard?  

Another reader submitted the following reply:

Why wouldn't you just write another paper on the topic, without including "the same basic ideas"? Of course you can build on what you argue in this shorter paper, but why not write a new paper on the topic?

What do you all think?

Best practices for choosing external reviewers for tenure applications?

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

Are there any best practices or advice for how to choose external reviewers for a tenure application?

I wouldn't know, as my university doesn't use external reviewers. But I'm curious to hear from people at institutions that do! 

Anyone have any helpful tips to share?

Transferring into a higher-ranked PhD program?

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

I am in a tricky situation. I am an incoming PhD student at a low-ranking institution. Naturally, I want to maximize my chances on the job market post-graduation. In the last five months (since my first PhD applications were due), I have recieved five acceptances from very serious journals. I also have a perfect GPA, a perfect GRE score, and a master's degree from a respected university. I was waitlisted by most programs to which I applied. The director of graduate admissions at my top choice program told me that I came within a hair's breadth of a first-round acceptance and probably would have gotten one had news of my publications come sooner. He also told me that, based on my forthcoming work, I was "easily good enough" to excel in a top-five program.

So, here is my question: Should I try to transfer to a higher-ranked institution after a year or two at my current program? Would this be mercenary, ungrateful, or at all likely to improve my job prospects? I should emphasize that I actually quite like the faculty at my current program, based on my initial interactions with them, and that the university has granted me an extremely generous fellowship offer (comparable to the standard funding package at a top-ten program). I am temperamentally quite conscientious and loyal and would almost certainly feel guilty about jumping ship. However, the school's placement late is very low, and I have a family to feed.

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

There is nothing to be loyal to ... graduate school is professional training. If you are able to get that training at a place (i) that is more highly regarded, and (ii) has a better placement record, it seems like a no-brainer. Your currently faculty should be proud of you, not resentful.

I entirely agree. Given that many PhD students who start programs never finish, given that a PhD program can take anywhere from 5-8+ years (in the US), and given that of those who do finish, only a small proportion end up with permanent or TT faculty jobs, one owes it to oneself to do everything one can to put oneself into a position to be successful. And, as the OP writes, they have a family to look after. So, I say, go for it, and do it sooner rather than later. I transferred myself after 2 years in a PhD program (due to multiple faculty getting hired away by a different school), and very few of my classes transferred over--so it would have been much better to transfer after only one year!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

 

Reducing prestige bias?

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

How do we get rid of the prestige bias as a discipline? As many comments in this blog demonstrate, philosophers, even the ones who think they are unbiased, are extremely good at making themselves believe that prestige correlates well with quality, despite there being no data or systematic research on this. How do we stop letting this affect the gates of academic philosophy, i.e., search committees, admissions committees, journal referees who happen to know which Big Name wrote the paper, etc. Should we wait boomers to die? Should we wait an AI-based solution? Should we create something like Gossip Girl and shame "fancy" people until they act rightly? What is the way?

I don't know. I try to combat prestige bias in things that I can control, such as who I cite in papers and books, as well as in my role as a journal reviewer (I don't think, as a matter of scholarship, one gets to simply ignore relevant work because it didn't appear in a prestigious journal). I think that graduate faculty and dissertation supervisors might also make a point of requiring their students to adopt similar norms. But beyond this, I don't know. I don't think just "waiting for boomers to die" is likely to change much, as prestige hierarchies seem to reemerge every generation.

Anyway, what do you all think?

Do grad departments rank grad students?

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

In my PhD program many of the students believe that the faculty rank the grad students in their once-a-semester meeting to discuss grad student progress. The faculty deny this, but I think these rumors contribute to the somewhat competitive environment in our program. Whom should we the grad students believe? Is ranking students (still) a common practice in PhD programs? Do universities even allow it?

Good questions. I seem to recall some rumors in my grad department about this too, but I don't know if anyone ever asked about it and if someone ever did, I would think that the grad faculty should be honest about it. Two other readers submitted follow up comments:

Certainly when I was a graduate student, faculty did rank the students, and they were compelled to when it came to supporting applications for competitive graduate grants (provincial and national in Canada). And I had heard that at Columbia they openly posted the ranking of grad students in the 1980s. In fact, you are going to be ranked all the time in this profession. And it does create a rather destructive competitive atmosphere. But to think you won't be ranked is naive. - by 'ambivalent'

[W]hile I am not sure about ranking culture in general, I do know that departments (or, the DGS or chair in charge) would often rank students in order to make recommendations for, say, university-wide competitive funding opportunities. What may end up happening is that the same student(s) would both get those internal findings and a job offer, so the internal money just goes back to the grad school, instead of going to the second person in line. - by 'To anxious grad'

Do any other readers have any helpful insights?

Norms of backing out of a VAP for a TT job?

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

I want to ask for advice about the norms, strategies, etc. for possibly backing out of a non tenure track job (e.g., a limited VAP) offer, in order to accept a tenure-track job. Say, if someone were to accept a VAP offer in early April, would it be okay to back out in late April to accept a recently received tenure-track offer elsewhere? Would you just tell the VAP school, "I'm very sorry ... but I can't turn down a tenure-track offer"? I'd appreciate any advice; thanks!

Good questions. I'd hope that any department/institution that offered the VAP would be understanding, given how difficult TT jobs are to get. But, does anyone have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

When a paper is under review and you have an invite to submit elsewhere?

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

Suppose I have a paper under review at Journal X. The editor of a very good invited venue asked me to send it to them instead, but it's got to be in by the end of the month. I don't know if Journal X is going to make a decision by then.

Is there anything ethical I can do to get my paper back from Journal X by the end of the month? For example, would it be permissible to withdraw the paper and apologize profusely? Or, barring that, perhaps I could nudge the editors of Journal X for faster decision?

Good questions. I've been in similar positions before, and have never quite known what to do. Do any readers have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

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?

Reviewing a paper again for another journal?

In our two most recent "how can we help you?" threads, two comments were posted (by the same reader?) on whether to accept a reviewer assignment for a paper that they already recommended rejecting at another journal:

I've been asked to review a paper in a journal that I've already reviewed in a different journal and recommended rejection. I haven't seen the new paper but the title is the same. I was quite sure the paper was not ready for publication then and its been about 3 months since then that I've received the request and so I think its unlikely the paper has substantially improved. Should I still take up the review request?

----

Should you review a paper that you've reviewed before for another journal that you recommended rejection there? I'm not sure if it seems unfair to them that they have to be reviewed by the same reviewer that already didn't like their work the first time and maybe deserve to have someone else read the work?

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I have refused to review for a second time. Reason is that I believe that I may be mistaken. And being on the other end, my currently most cited paper (and among the top cited papers in the relevant debate) was rejected by a particular reviewer several times at different journals, always giving the same set of comments. (Almost prompting me to leave academics.) I think it would be bad to exacerbate one's mistake.

This is my policy as well, and for the same reasons. Peer-review is such a crapshoot, and referees so different in their judgments, that I think an author deserves a shot with different reviewers in different places. 

What do you all think?

Ideas being stolen at conferences?

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

I'm a graduate student and I've submitted my paper to many conferences, including the graduate conference. I'm wondering if there is any chance that my ideas will be stolen and published before I publish them. I have this question because I've heard that many referees for graduate conferences are students, and I've heard that students have stolen other people's ideas from conference papers. Also, sometimes I come up with an idea and I think I've read it before, but I can't find it. But I'm not sure if it's from a draft I've read before.

I have all kinds of thoughts about this, and will probably weigh in down in the comments section. But, before I do, I'm curious to hear from other readers.

What do you all think? Have you ever run into problems presenting unpublished work at conferences or colloquia (viz. sketchy shenanigans that made you think someone took and published your ideas)? In line with this blog's safe and supportive mission, please don't make explicit or implicit allegations directed toward identifiable individuals. Instead, I'm just looking for a general sense of whether people have run into problems that have led them to think that presenting at conferences (and such) is risky for junior people for the kinds of reasons the OP mentions.

Problematic job-market practices?

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

This is a request, rather than a question. Could we make a chart with all of the unhelpful, problematic things we see through the job market process for schools--to generate collective knowledge? e.g. Some schools are atrocious with spousal hiring. Some schools pitch salaries very low, expecting you'll negotiate. Some schools have departments collapsing because the financial health of the university is bad. Surely, this information would be helpful to future candidates.

In brief, doing this sort of thing at the Cocoon isn't consistent with this blog's safe-and-supportive mission. Further, although I'm not a lawyer, I imagine that making a list of which schools do various "problematic things" could be legally problematic, viz. libel (if false allegations are spread that damages a program's reputation). However, what I think would be consistent with the Cocoon's mission is for job candidates to enumerate in fully general terms the kinds of unnecessary indignities or problematic practices they have faced on the market, without naming or otherwise implicating particular individuals, schools, or programs, either explicitly or implicitly. Doing this could be helpful, first of all, by drawing attention to the kinds of things that job candidates find to be problematic--and so, secondly, by perhaps generating some kind of impetus (viz. raising public consciousness in the profession) for improving hiring practices.

So, this is what I propose instead. Job candidates: without naming or (explicitly or implicitly) implicating any particular individuals, programs, or institutions, what general kinds of things have you encountered on the market that you consider to be problematic and warranting correction, and why? The OP named a few: schools being atrocious with spousal hiring, pitching extremely low salaries, having bad financial health as institutions that imperil departments, etc. What other kinds of (potentially) problematic things have job candidates encountered, and what (if anything) do you think would be better?

Write recommendation letters for students you barely know?

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

Should you write letters of recommendations for undergraduate students who took you for a 300-student lecture, whose work you didn't personally grade and with whom you had no interaction?

I'd have thought the answer is obviously no, but then I wonder whether this disadvantages students, who need the letters and who can't always find a way to get to know professors... Is refusing at least a decent thing to do, or is it unfair to vulnerable, shy or otherwise struggling students?

Good questions. I'm not sure that I've encountered this kind of situation before, so I'm not sure exactly what I think. I suppose you could always ask such a student to provide you with some of their work to review, and then go from there. But again, I don't think I've ever encountered this situation. To the best of my recollection, I've only been asked to write letters for students who have taken multiple courses with me, and all of our courses are 25 students or less and we have no TA's, so I always feel well-positioned to decide whether I can write a good letter.

Anyway, what do you all think?

Norms on reusing/recycling previously published ideas?

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

Is there a norm on how much of a book chapter contribution to an edited volume can overlap with material published (or to be published) by a journal? I feel like philosophers often "recycle" their own writings but I wonder if there are expectations or norms or even recommendations about this!

Good question. I know that some publishers have explicit requirements on what they allow, and that it may differ according to the publisher. But, beyond this, I'm not sure what the norms are. My sense is that some authors do repeatedly recycle previously published ideas, but I'm not at all sure what is considered good practice here. 

Anyone have any tips or insights?

How to teach sensitive topics close to students' lives?

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

How to teach topics which in some way come very close to the students and their lives or are related to who they are? What I have in mind are cases of teaching sexual ethics when someone in the classroom says she is a victim of a sexual assault, teaching philosophy of disability when there is a disabled person in the class, or teaching philosophy of discrimination when you have 24 white students and one black student on the course? Is there something the teacher should do differently in these cases compared to when the issue is not present in the same way?

These are excellent and important questions. Another reader submitted the following reply: 

I have an experience that is relevant to [the OP's] question. I was teaching a feminist philosophy class for the first time and we often discussed sexual assault. I used an example to explain a concept and, unbeknownst to me, the example I used very closely matched the actual experience of one of my students. She emailed me about it later and requested that I stick to the examples provided in the text. That way, she explained, she will have already grappled with the exemplar situation (at least once) while reading and could be more mentally and emotionally prepared in class discussions. I apologized to her and agreed that her suggestion was very sensible. That's what I did for the rest of the semester and I had no other issues.

Does anyone else have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Going on the market just after starting a job?

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

Two questions about job market etiquette:

1) Is it considered "rude," "in poor taste," or in violation of relevant norms to leave a job after only one year? One the one hand, I believe in employee freedom in a labor market; on the other, I get that people might be offended by this.

2) Is is a valid worry that your current employer might find out that you're on the market? I would hope that application materials are confidential, but I also imagine that philosophers, like the rest of humankind, like to gossip. Does anyone have experience of their employers retaliating in any sort of way after finding out they were applying out?

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following response:

I had a colleague who we hired leave after one year. I did not consider her rude ... I understood her motives quite well. But I am sure some of my colleagues absolutely hated her. We spent a lot of time doing the search, time we did not have. And then we choose her from among a number of fully qualified candidates - she deserved the job, but others were deserving as well. And then when she left we did not get the line renewed. It was lost ... for good! So do not expect your colleagues to be endeared to you if they find out you are on the market.

This sounds right to me, but here are my hot takes:

1. Sure, people will probably get upset if you leave after a year, as they hired you hoping and expecting you'd stay. But you have a right to leave for another job at any time (though if they asked during the hiring process whether you'd stay if hired and you were dishonest, then that seems bad, right?).
2. It's a worry for sure, but a "valid" one? I have no idea. I've never heard of employers finding out about this kind of stuff through the proverbial grape-vine, and think it would be an enormous wrong for anyone to compromise the confidentiality of a job application. Does it ever happen? I have no idea.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from people who have some experience with this kind of scenario, both on the job-candidate and hiring sides of things.

What to do with an accepted book chapter when the book falls through?

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

One of my papers was accepted as a book chapter. But book project failed as the publishing house closed down.
Should I still list this acceptance in my CV, and if so how should I represent it?

Unfortunately, I think the answer here is plainly "no", and the paper should now simply be represented like any other work in progress. As another reader submitted in a follow-up comment:

Do not list it. It counts for nothing and will look desperate. I assume the press cannot be that impressive anyway, if they went under. The thing to do now is send it to a good journal.

I don't want to infer anything about the press (COVID seems to have impacted even the most notable academic presses pretty severely), but I otherwise I agree with this follow-up. It sucks for sure that this happened to the OP, but they should simply try to publish the paper elsewhere. Anyone have different thoughts?

Asking editors to exclude particular reviewers?

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

I think my papers keep getting sent to, and rejected by, a few senior philosophers from my discipline who don't have a high opinion of my work (not entirely for scholarly reasons, I suspect).

How usual/acceptable is it to ask editors at a journal to exclude one/set-of philosophers from reviewing your article? Would it put the article at a disadvantage?

Interesting questions. I know that a few journals explicitly ask authors to recommend reviewers as well as reviewers the author would like to avoid. I've submitted to a few journals like these over the years, and they tend to require some explanation by the author. But what about journals that don't have this feature? Most journals, in my experience, have a "comments to editor" box where you can write a short cover letter to the editor(s) upon submission. So, I suppose if you were a submitting author, you could mention something to the effect of what the OP mentions above.

But is this at all appropriate? How would editors respond? I'm not sure. I guess if the OP sincerely thinks certain people are rejecting their work "not entirely for scholarly reasons" (such as personal or political reasons), then they could mention such potential conflicts of interest in their cover letter. But again, I'm not sure how advisable this is. 

Anyone have any helpful insights here? It would be great to hear from authors, but obviously, it would be very helpful to hear from journal editors.

Commuting a distance to work?

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

I was lucky to secure a tenured position a few years ago. I really like the department, and feel privileged to have a permanent position, but am unhappy about the place and really miss the place I used to live. I’ve tried to come to terms with the new place for two years, but it’s clear to me that this is not gonna happen.

I’m considering approaching the head of dept and ask whether commuting would be okay, but worry that this might backfire. My department does not look favorably at commuting, since they worry that faculty will only show up for their teaching and not contribute to the departmental life. I also don’t have a partner, children or any other "formal" reason that would effectively explain my commute to colleges. I just feel miserable. It’s obviously a personal concern, so I am not sure how (or whether) to ask the head of dept about this.

It's not exactly clear how far the OP is thinking of commuting (it might be helpful to know!), but I take it that it would be a serious distance such that they might be poorly positioned to take part in many departmental or university functions above and beyond teaching. Bearing this in mind, another reader submitted the following reply:

First, you can do what you want, within the law. So commute if that is what you want and need. The idea that you would check this with your department is crazy. Second, I would resent having a colleague commuting. I worked in a small department where two colleagues commuted, and I was expected to do all sorts of inconvenient service work because I lived locally. There was no recognition of this, and no compensation. So expect your colleagues to resent you.

For the most part, I think this response is probably right--though I suppose that if one were to (say) move to a different state and fly in once a week just to teach, then (potential legal issues aside) it might be a bad idea not to tell anybody (as hiding something like this might be reasonably considered disrespectful by others).

What does everyone else think? It would be good to hear, in particular, from other people who have commuted to work or had faculty in their department do so. How did it go? Did it work out okay, or give rise to serious problems?

"Pay me for my expertise"--on the issue of honoraria for talks by academics

Every few years (months?) discussion surfaces on what a "fair" remuneration is for academics who give a talk. For instance, today on Twitter Jennifer van Alstyne argued that PhD holders should charge a minimum of $3500 for a one-hour talk. This struck many as unrealistic. Very few academics other than, say, Yuval Harari, will be able to command large honoraria. Many very stellar folk are willing to come and talk for a modest honorarium. 

In defense of the claim that our speaking fees should be higher than they are we often see a variation of the justice argument: van Alstyne writes, "PhDs have varied salaries. Only a small % of professors are tenured. Do you think an adjunct professor should be happy with their 'salary'? That they don't deserve to be paid for a speaking engagement? That's wild to me. All professors deserve to be paid for their expertise." 

We also often see the time compensation argument: $3500 is not as excessive as it first appears if we see the speaking engagement as a whole in terms of specialized academic labor.  A one-hour talk involves a lot more work than just one hour. I estimate (fairly accurately, as I have kept time diaries in the past)  if I write a talk from scratch and it is on a new topic it takes me about 10-14 hours to do so (I am not counting the amount of prep reading as this is usually preceding the talk, as it usually relates to things I'm working on). There is the inconvenience of travel. Moreover, you will also socialize, sometimes talk to the grad students (in colloquium talks), go to dinner after etc (this is usually pleasant and not a chore, but still part of the professional broader time commitment of giving a talk).

Finally, there is the argument of proper remuneration for expertise by minorities. Oftentimes, minorities such as Indigenous, Black, trans, and disabled scholars are expected to give free advice and free consulting. This is unjust. It is only normal and proper we should be properly compensated for our labor.

Ultimately, I think those three arguments do not work.

Presenting papers currently under review?

In our November "how can we help you?" thread, an anonymous postdoc writes:

I've seen a few discussion here about presenting papers before they are under review. And the consensus seems to be that this is fine (as I think it should be).

However, I'm not sure you've touched on presenting papers that are currently under review.

Specifically, I am giving a talk next week on a paper that is already under review, and at a venue where I expect some of the most obvious reviewers for the paper will be attending (although it is not a particularly niche paper, so the probability the reviewers are actually there is reasonably low).

The following reasons make me think this should not be a problem: 1. I'm pretty sure I've seen people do this before. 2. If the reviewers are in the audience and haven't started reading the paper yet then this is really just an instance of pre-review presentation.

But the final reason goes rather the other way: 3. If the reviewers have started reading the paper and my presentation changes their views of the paper (either positively or negatively) then they might need to excuse themselves (or feel that they should) from review—and that would be annoying for everyone (me, the reviewers, the editors) due to the wasted time and effort all around.

So, have I made a mistake? And assuming that I will present the paper anyway (it would be difficult to change now), is it better to flag that the paper is already under review or not to mention it?

My sense is that it is fine to present papers that are under review at journals. I suppose it could "pollute the reviewer pool", as it were, particularly if the paper is on a niche topic where there aren't many reviewers for the journal to choose from. But this is a problem even before a paper is under review, as presenting at conferences or colloquia can disclose your identity to potential reviewers too. I also don't think it's a good idea to flag it to the presentation organizers or participants. But, I'm not sure. I have to confess that I've never thought about the OP's questions before myself!

What do you all think?

Sending a conference commentator a longer paper?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Future Conference Presenter writes:

A conference question: Someone will be commenting on a paper of mine for the first time at the Eastern APA, and I have to give them a "final draft" by the end of the month. The conference itself only allows ~3,000 word submission, but the full paper is ~7,000 words.

If I give my commentator the shorter paper, there is a good chance they will bring up some good objections that I address in the longer version. But of course the 7,000 word version was not submitted and requires more effort to review. Should I reach out and ask the commentator what they prefer? Is it rude to just send them the longer version? Should I send both? Thanks!

Interesting questions. One reader, 'moral police', submitted the following reply:

You should ONLY send the 3000 word version that was accepted by the conference program. That is what you have been invited to present.

But another reader, an anonymous postdoc, writes:

I don't know the specific norms of the APA, but speaking personally I would probably like to receive both. I'd definitely think it was rude if you only sent me the 7,000 when 3,000 was specified—this would indicate you think I should be putting in the effort to read a longer version rather than you putting in the effort to make a good shorter version. But I can't imagine someone thinking it was rude to offer them both, since they can simply ignore the 7,000 one if they don't have time/prefer the shorter version/whatever.

I'm curious what other readers think.

On the one hand, I totally understand where 'moral police' is coming from. If the conference itself says that papers are to be 3,000 words long max, then it would not only go against the conference policy to present a longer version--even suggesting to a commentator that they read a 7,000 word version is to, in essence, ask for something that they did not 'sign up for' (which does seem rude to me). I also worry that presenting a longer version of the paper would be likely to go overtime in the conference session itself, eating into either the commentator's time or the Q&A (which can happen if the session chair doesn't enforce speaking times properly, which can easily happen). Finally, what if the session chair or conference organizers find out (perhaps if they are notified by an irritated commentator)? I imagine they might not be very happy about it...

On the other hand, I can also imagine that some commentators might prefer to read the longer reason, as they might not want to raise questions or objections that the author actually addresses in a longer version. 

So, I guess I'm really not sure. What do other readers think? 

Petitioning an editor to reconsider a verdict?

A reader wrote in recently with the following kind of question, which I paraphrase (with their consent) to preserve their anonymity:

If you submit a paper to a journal, the referees provide mixed verdicts (one positive, one negative) and your paper is rejected, does it ever make sense to petition an editor to reconsider their decision, particularly if you think the negative report is flimsy, unfair, etc.? Have any readers tried this? If so, did your petition work?

We actually discussed this issue a few years ago, and the few comments there were illuminating. But I think it might be helpful to hear from more readers, as well as perhaps from some editors!

 

Journals & conflict of interest declarations

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

I recently submitted a paper to Phil Studies, which was sent back by Springer's editorial office because I didn't include a conflict of interest statement *in the blinded manuscript*.

I have never been required to do this before, and it seems quite obvious that this potentially violates the manuscript's anonymity. For example, my research is funded by a scholarship that is only awarded once every year, so it is very easy to deduce my identity.

Has anyone heard of such requirements before? I just cannot quite comprehend that this is the policy at Springer journals, but maybe I'm missing something.

I have to confess that I've puzzled over this too, as it has happened to me too. Another reader submitted the following reply:

Once one of my manuscripts was bounced back for the same reason, but then all they wanted me to write down was a line that essentially said, "Here is my statement on conflicts of interest. There aren't any". So, it did not violate anonymity, but it did feel silly.

This seems right (it's what I've done too), but it still raises the questions: (1) Why are some journals now doing this?, and (2) is there any (justified) point to it?

Applying to jobs just after starting a TT job?

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

Is it frowned upon to have a new tenure-track position, and to be applying out to a different one? For various reasons, it is already clear that this place is not a good fit for my family. But it feels bad to be applying out, especially since the department invested in me and may not get a replacement line.

Good question. Two readers submitted helpful replies. One reader writes:

You do what you gotta do. If your family is terribly unhappy, then you have got to look into other options. Of course the people who hired you will be disappointed ... but they have their lives, and you have yours.

And Bill Vanderburgh adds:

It may be smart to keep your search confidential until you get an on-campus interview. But a job is just a job: you owe no special responsibilities beyond doing what you are paid to do, and you can quit anytime for any reason you like. Moving on from a tenure-track job is not unusual. Sure it costs the university something, but that is not your problem--it is just an ordinary cost of running a university. You certainly aren't required to commit your family to indefinite misery just because you accepted a job. If there is something the university could reasonably do to make the situation better (a job for your spouse, online teaching so you can live a bit farther from campus, or something like that), it might be worth asking the dean. But don't make it sound like an ultimatum (do this or I'll leave) unless you have an offer already in hand.

I agree. It may stink to the department that hired you to lose you, but no one is entitled to have you work for them! Would it be 'frowned upon' if the department you are in found out you're applying out? Almost certainly. But you are under no obligation to let them know, and I do not know of any cases of departments being 'tipped off' that one of their members is applying elsewhere. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear from people who have been in the OP's position!

Listing a presentation presented by a co-author?

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

A co-authored paper of mine was recently accepted to a conference. I can no longer make it to the conference, but my co-author has agreed (with the conference's permission) to present the paper on our collective behalf.

My question is about how to represent this on a CV. On the one hand, I am an author of the accepted paper, which is an accomplishment (however small). On the other, it is misleading to simply list it under 'conference presentations', since I am not presenting. Could I get around this by placing an asterisk next to it and adding *presented by co-author? Alternatively, should I simply exclude this from my CV? For me personally, excluding it is no big deal; my CV is robust enough now that this sort of thing would not make or break me. However, I can imagine more junior scholars for whom being able to list an accepted paper at a good conference is valuable, despite having to leave the presentation itself to their co-author.

Maybe I am approaching this all wrong, and this is no different from a case where a single-authored paper is accepted but the author declines to present. Such a thing would not be listed on one's CV (or would it?), so maybe the same holds true for the co-authored case?

Good question. I think it should be listed on the CV, and that noting “*presented by co-author” is probably the way the go. What do you all think?

Is it ethical to post preprints?

Liam Kofi Bright, Remco Heesen, and I have argued for transitioning toward a crowdsourced approach to peer review. Yet, one common concern raised to our alternative approach is that it would effectively undermine anonymized review--the main mechanism in our current system for mitigating bias in favor and against authors on the basis of knowing their identity. I honestly appreciate this concern, though I still think the overall benefits of moving toward a hybrid peer-review model like that used in math and physics (which combines a crowdsourced approach with traditional journal review) are likely to outweigh the costs. 

But regardless, I recognize that not everyone agrees that peer-review should change, and this has gotten me thinking a bit about the ethics of particular actions surrounding these issues. For example, one thing that advocates for change might do is to post preprints on PhilArchive or PhilSci Archive, normalizing the practice. But, is it ethical to do this?  Last week, I asked whether journals or referees care whether authors post preprints--and I'm glad I did. For, as Jake Nebel chimed in, at least one philosophy journal, Ethics, does care about this. Their official editorial policy for Submission Eligibility reads:

We ask that authors not post or publish online manuscripts that they have submitted or will be submitting to Ethics, as doing so may compromise the anonymous review process or may disqualify the submission on grounds of prior publication.

So, I'm curious about a couple of things. First, irrespective of whether other journals have a policy like this, is it ethical for authors to post preprints--either on an online archive or on their person website--prior to journal submission (given the manner in which it might compromise anonymized peer review)? If it's not ethical, what alternative steps for promoting reform to peer review (for those of us who advocate for reform) are ethical? I'm really curious to hear what everyone thinks!

Writing papers that overlap significantly

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

I have two papers that deal with the same issue but from slightly different perspectives. Paper 1 has been accepted for publication. Paper 2 is a work in progress. Paper 2 utilizes and relies upon a criticism of a view that I develop more fully in paper 1. However, how do I incorporate this criticism in paper 2 without plagiarizing myself? I figure I should first cite myself, of course. But then can I basically copy and paste? Or should I rephrase the criticism, or expand it? How to go about this? Thanks!

These are good questions. I've faced this issue many times, and I normally try to rewrite things significantly for a few different reasons.

Norms for writing, research, and citations

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

It is a probably basic question about academic norms. When you write a paper, concerning any train of thought (claims, arguments, etc.), should you simply think about it on your own and write it out as your own plus a reference to similar work if you do find such work, *or* search the literature and try to find if someone else makes similar claims, arguments, etc., and then simply explain this person's idea in your paper, not claiming it to be your own even if you come up with it yourself? I intend this to be a very general question---the choice in question can occur any number of times when writing a paper. Thanks in advance.

This is a great query, and it echoes a set of questions raised by NK in this thread a few months ago:

I wonder if it might be worth starting a more general discussion here about the *point* of citation. I, for one, would be interested to hear others' views on when, and why, one *ought* to cite a given work.

One suggestion made above is that you ought to (try to) cite everything relevant. Another (to which I take Helen to have objected, though the following is an attempt to describe it a bit more charitably) would be that you ought to cite relevant work that you think is good/worth reading and engaging with. These obvious differ in at least one important way: on the latter proposal, citations would be prestige-markers; on the former, they wouldn't.

Are there other options? And what is there to be said for and against each option?

I'm also curious what others think of the following sociological hypothesis: when you cite "low-prestige" work (whatever exactly that means), you thereby lower the perceived prestige of your own (i.e., the citing) work, in the sense that others are going to be less likely to read your work and/or take it seriously (if/when they take note of the character of your citations).

N.K.'s last point (that citing "low-prestige work" can lower the perceived prestige of your own) is one of the main reasons that I think authors are under an obligation to do some basic research--via doing some simple searches for key words in PhilPapers and Google Scholar--before writing, and to cite and/or discuss explicitly up front any relevant precursors (including similar arguments) to the one they intend to write about.

Dealing with unresponsive journals (again)?

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

Here's a(nother) question about dealing with unresponsive journals:

I submitted a paper last summer (2021). It is with a good journal in my subfield and is one of my better papers. It initially received a 'revise and resubmit, no commitment to publishing' in November '21, and I resubmitted in December '21. The paper has been untouched since then (i.e., for about seven months). The editors have not responded to two emails asking whether the paper is still actively under review.

When do I pull out? At the nine-month mark? The one-year mark? I would of course like to publish with them, but continuing to wait could lead to problems for my career. Thanks in advance for any advice.

Good questions. We've discussed how to handle slow and unresponsive journals before, but the question seems to come up fairly often, so I think it's important to discuss. Personally, I think I'd send the editors one more email and pull the paper within a week or two if they don't respond. There are always other good journals out there, and if you got a revise-and-resubmit at this journal, chances are you'll get one (or perhaps even an acceptance) at another good journal. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Thanking previous referees in submissions?

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

I have a paper that was rejected from a journal, but with an unbelievably helpful referee report that is instrumental in rewriting the paper. How do I acknowledge this anonymous reviewer when I resubmit the paper to a new journal? Is it odd to acknowledge a reviewer from a previous journal's review process in a new submission?

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

[U]sually submissions should not include any acknowledgements, so then there's no problem. Once the paper is accepted and you add acknowledgements you can acknowledge a reviewer from a previous journal.

I respectfully disagree. When I submit papers to journals, I often include acknowledgments to anonymous referees--usually in footnotes at places in the paper that have been substantially revised due to referees' suggestions. I don't mention which journal(s) the referees were from, as I think that could introduce biases into the review process. But I tend to thank referees because I think they deserve the acknowledgment, and because I worry that if I incorporated a ton of their feedback into the paper without acknowledging them, it might irritate them (or worse) if they are asked to review the paper again for the new journal. I've also never been asked to remove these kinds of acknowledgments in an initial submission precisely because they are anonymized (though if I ever were asked to remove them, of course I would). My understanding at any rate, has always been that the reason that journals ask you to "remove acknowledgments" is to preserve anonymized review and prevent bias (which might occur, obviously, if you write things like, "I thank Derek Parfit and audiences at NYU and Princeton for their feedback").

Anyway, this is just what I do and my experience with my approach. What do you all think?