The Philosophers' Cocoon

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?

Norms for travel reimbursement in the COVID era?

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

What are the current norms about COVID and travel reimbursement? For example, suppose one gets invited for an in-person talk and the host promises to pay. But due to COVID, the trip had to be cancelled, the talk had to be given online, and some travel arrangements are unrefundable. Should the host pay? Or, for example, suppose one is traveling using university money, but again the trip had to be cancelled, is it still okay to submit the unrefundable travel costs for reimbursement?

Good questions. My experience is that many universities have strict policies governing these kinds of things, such that if you don't actually travel it's against their rules to submit travel reimbursements. So, on that, I'd be careful and forthright with your university about your situation. Hopefully, they'll be understanding. In terms of invited talks, if the in-person visit is canceled, it seems to me that the host should clearly cover non-refundable costs. But these are just my thoughts and experiences. What are yours?

Importing commentator feedback into a paper?

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

I am wondering what the proper thing to do is in the following situation. A person was assigned as a commentator on my paper at a conference, and in their comments they summarized the main argument of my paper in premise form. The form was implicit in my argument, but now that I am revising the paper, I would like to include the argument in premise form. What is the right thing to do around using either their summary, or maybe a slightly altered version. Should I state in a footnote something like 'thanks to x for suggesting the following formulation'? Should I do that even if I change it somewhat? Or should I just thank them at the end in the acknowledgements and in the places where they suggested a given objection to a part of my argument (I will do both of these either way, of course)? The main thing that is confusing me is that the argument was there already in the original, and so a thing of my making, but not explicitly in premise form, and so a thing of their making. But then if I had gone through the trouble of making it more explicit, then I would have likely arrived at something very similar to their end product. So, what to do?

This is an excellent question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think it would be nice to thank x for specifically that. Maybe at the argument, add a footnote like "this argument was explicitly formulated first in x's helpful comments." This does not imply that you wouldn't be able to formulate yourself.

I think things are a bit more complicated than this. Even though the argument the commentator placed into premise-conclusion is of your making, the particular formulation of it in premise-conclusion form is (as the OP notes) of their making. So, I think simply taking it and importing it into the paper, even with minor alterations and an acknowledgment, may be a bit dicey. Personally, I think the safe thing to do here would be to simply email the commentator to ask them whether they are okay with you using it, noting that you would of course acknowledge them in the paper for suggesting it. This not only seems to me to be called for as a matter of professional courtesy. You also never know: perhaps if you don't ask, the person could get upset and lodge some kind of research misconduct (e.g. plagiarism) allegation. This may seem unlikely (and unreasonable), but why chance it when you can just ask them instead before going forward?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

 

Thanking too many people in a paper?

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

Perhaps this is a silly or trivial question, but I've been wondering about it since a thread came up a few weeks ago. My practice has always been to basically acknowledge anyone who gave me feedback on a paper, even if it was just a brief conversation that gave me something to think about. For that reason my acknowledgements section in my papers is usually pretty long—now that I think about it, probably considerably longer than most papers I read. I always included everyone just since on the other side, it always gives me a nice feeling to see my name in an acknowledgements section and I assumed it was costless for me to just include people. But it occurred to me that perhaps not only is this not the done thing, but maybe it makes it look like my papers are more 'crowdsourced' than they are, which isn't a good look.

This may not be a huge issue, but still, I think it's worth discussing, as readers may recall that we discussed paper acknowledgments about a month ago. In response, a UK postdoc submitted the following comment:

To be honest, I doubt that anyone will try to draw any conclusions about your paper from the acknowledgements section. They could just as well conclude the opposite: that you are well-connected, that many people are interested in your work, or indeed that you are very generous with your gratitude!

What do you all think?

Reviewing papers seen at a conference?

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

I am working on a paper on a topic in a very narrow area. Except a few people who have interests in this area, I feel that most potential readers hold some negative attitudes toward this area (for example, many do not appreciate questions in this area; some dislike the philosophical methodology that is used in this area).

My question is: should I present this paper at conferences that those who are sympathetic to my view will probably attend? I feel that I will get some helpful feedback. But I worry that those people will be automatically disqualified as my future reviewers since they will know who the author is when they see the paper.

A related question: I always assume that if I know who the author of a manuscript is, I should not review it whether I personally know the author or not. Is this the case? I honestly feel that some papers were so widely presented that most people who were interested in those topics had known who the authors are. Were those papers really reviewed by people who have not heard about them at all?

These are good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

You can referee papers that you heard before - the key is to avoid conflicts of interest. Do not referee papers by your supervisor, your students, post docs, or your colleagues. Further, if you know you are predisposed against a paper because you heard it is bets to decline. Paper deserve a fair shot.

What do you all think? Should the OP present their paper at conferences? And is it really okay to review a paper you've seen at a conference? Even if you think you can "avoid conflicts of interest", doesn't this compromise the point of anonymized review, which is to prevent conflicts of interest that people cannot necessarily reliably avoid on their own?

Who to thank in acknowledgments?

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

This may be a silly question with an obvious answer, idk. Suppose you get (lengthy) comments on your draft that haven't changed your draft in any way. The comments are of the nature "what is the implication on this and that" that seeks to extend the discussion. Should you thank them for their comments? What is the norm here?

Suppose also that some of the commentators are big names in the area. I think this should not matter for the answer, but maybe it does for practical purposes?

Thanks in advance!

Good questions. Another reader, Tam, submitted the following reply:

I believe that the done thing is to thank anyone who gave you comments even if you don't change the draft at all in light of them and even if they are totally useless. And regardless of whether it is indeed the done thing, it is the prudent thing, since omitting the person's name could offend them while as far as I can tell it costs you nothing at all to include them. Anyway, many acknowledgements take the form, "I am very grateful to X, Y, and Z for their comments on earlier drafts of this article". So you don't even have to be on record claiming that you changed the paper.

This seems like good advice to me. However, my own approach is even a bit more inclusive than this. I try to thank anyone who in any plausible way "helped the paper come to fruition", where this is understood in the broadest possible sense. So, in the OP's case, even if the lengthy comments someone provided didn't change the paper in any way, that person still helped: they read the paper and provided comments! Similarly, if I have a helpful conversation with someone, or if someone asks a really good series of questions at a conference, I may single them out for thanks even if they didn't read the paper, and of course I may also thank the broader conference audience too, as many people do. These have always just seemed like kind (and appropriate) things to do. Of course, I suppose an acknowledgement section could become overly long with this approach, but that's never been an issue for me. As for thanking "big names", I've heard anecdotally that people may do this a form of signaling, but whatever may be the case, if the person in question actually helped the paper come to fruition in any meaningful way, then it seems to me appropriate to thank them.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Presenting a conference paper: deviating from the accepted version?

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

When presenting a paper at a conference (e.g. APA), how much is it acceptable to deviate from the version of the paper that was reviewed and accepted at the conference?

This is a good and important question to answer. One time when I served as a conference commentator, the presenter basically addressed all of the issues that I had raised in the comments that I sent to them, making my commentary useless. It felt like a really underhanded thing to do, put me in a really difficult position as their commentator, and I've heard anecdotally that similar things have occasionally happened to others. I'm not sure whether and how far it is acceptable to deviate from an accepted version of a paper if you don't have a commentator, but it seems to me plainly unacceptable (and unprofessional) to do what I describe above. What do you all think? 

Sending out 'different' papers with similar arguments?

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

Is it acceptable to simultaneously send out two papers which share the same general arguments but have vastly different presentations/styles (and even different conclusions)?

Example 1: Suppose there are multiple theories, A, B, C, D, and E, on an issue. You argue that a satisfactory theory should satisfy desiderata D1 and D2. You argue that theories A, B, and C fail to accomodate D1, theories D and E fail to accomodate D2. You argue that theory A with a restriction would accomodate both D1 and D2. Therefore, a restricted version of theory A is superior to all other views in the literature.

A reviewer proposes that you ignore B-E and just focus on A. You can instead argue that although theory A satisfies D2, theory A fails to accomodate the plausible desiderata D1, and this could be solved by adding in a restriction without compromising on D2.

Adopting the changes would result in a paper with a different conclusion (You will no longer be arguing for a view that is superior to all other views. You would be merely arguing that theory A needs a restriction). The presentation of the paper would also change substantially since it's focused on theory A rather than the broader literature. But the main general argument (that D1 is needed, and theory A with a restriction can accomodate D1 without compromising on D2) is the same. Would it be permissible to send out both the original version and the revised version to different journals given such differences?

Example 2: You have a standard paper, say 8k words long. Some reviewers recommend that you consider re-framing it as a reply paper to author X specifically, and make it a short reply-style paper (3k-4k). Doing so would change the presentation and style of the paper, omit a number of details (e.g. some objections and replies are left out), and cut out parts that connect to the broader literature so that you only focus on author X. But the shortern reply-style paper would still have the same general arguments. Would it be permissible to send out both the long version and short version to different journals given such differences?

This is an interesting query. I'm not entirely sure, but my sense is that Example 2 is probably impermissible but Example 1 more of a gray area case. The issue in both cases is that the main arguments are pretty similar, and if reviewers or editors at different journals found out about it, they might get upset about it. For this reason alone, my attitude has always been that it's not worth risking this kind of thing. The last thing you want to happen is for a referee or editor to make a formal complaint of research conduct--which, although the likelihood might be small, could be a real issue. Personally, I prefer to play it safe. What do you all think?

An Online Accessibility Pledge

Philosophers for Sustainability has a new Online Accessibility Pledge that anyone can sign which holds:

The recent spread of virtual research events and meetings has shown us that philosophy can be more sustainable, accessible and inclusive, both globally and locally. Online accessibility makes it possible to include more fully a host of philosophy stakeholders whose participation is eminently desirable. Among them are low-income, disabled, neurodivergent, international, and migrant philosophers, caregivers, philosophers with dietary restrictions, and students and scholars with limited access to travel funds. Finally, online-accessible meetings make our practices of gathering to discuss academic ideas more sustainable by reducing expensive and environmentally harmful travel.

Going forward, we philosophers pledge wherever possible to organize online-accessible research meetings. Such meetings may be organized either fully online or using a hybrid (online/in-person) model. In both cases, we will aim to make them accessible remotely by anyone who wishes to take part in them while fulfilling other requisite criteria, e.g. has had their paper accepted for a particular meeting, is a scholar in the relevant disciplines etc. We will offer such online accessibility to both presenters and participating audiences, from the start and for all academic presentations or aspects of the event. In doing so, we will take advantage of the accessibility features the online medium affords, such as closed captions, transcriptions etc. Finally, we will require no justifications or explanations of anyone who expresses their wish to take advantage of such online accessibility, nor will we charge unreasonable fees for their online participation.

I strongly support the spirit of this pledge, and I am strongly inclined to sign it with one minor caveat: namely, that in the case of hybrid online/in-person conferences, organizers should probably be able to set aside a particular number of in-person presentation slots (which, to be equitable, should plausibly--whenever possible--be equal in number to the number of remote-presenting slots on the program) and require submissions to indicate which type of slot they are applying for. This is because organizers of in-person events typically need to reserve conference venues, hotels, etc., and so may need assurances well in advance of the conference that some number of in-person presenters will attend (or else place themselves at serious financial risk, potentially violating vendor contracts, etc.). But this caveat aside, the pledge seems to me a very good one for sustainability, accessibility, and inclusivity reasons. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Handling (sketchy) citation omissions?

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

I would be interested in hearing thoughts and reactions to an experience that I think is typical, but sensitive.

Recently, a paper was published in a highly regarded journal. I think the paper is excellent. It argues for a thesis that I think is a constructive elaboration of a thesis that I defended a few years ago in a less regarded venue.

But I wasn't cited. This can happen, I'm sure. But what gives me some pause is the fact that their bibliography contains most, if not all, the same references that I have referred to in my own work on this topic. Some of the references could be considered obscure. So, I am left wondering how the paper has an excellent bibliography, but perhaps the author did not come across my work or find it relevant. The former possibility is fine. The latter possibility would make less sense to me because it involves the very same argumentative strategy that the author uses in their own paper (but mind you that I think the author does it better).

I'm trying to be mindful here about this experience. On the one hand, complaining about failing to be cited feels like complaining about not being retweeted or shared on social media. On the other, the experience seems to be giving me feelings of exclusion from the philosophy profession (especially as a nonwhite early career academic).

I am also not up to speed with citation ethics. We all know that plagiarism is bad. But sometimes people fail to cite crucial elements of their view that have an intellectual heritage in the works of others. I feel like the risks of trying to enforce a norm against such failures outweigh the benefits. But I also dislike the feeling of being made to feel subjectively irrelevant to a debate where my contribution was objectively relevant at the textual and argumentative level.

Thoughts? Opinions?

This is an excellent query. I really empathize: similar stuff has happened to me a number of times, and I know from talking to people that it happens to other people as well. When this has occurred to me, I’ve given some thought to trying to do something—but, to be honest, as the OP notes it never seemed to me to be worth the trouble. Instead, my approach has been to take the high road and keep publishing work in the hope that it won’t really matter in the end.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be good to hear how many people this kind of stuff happens to, and how people deal with it or think the best way of dealing with it is!

Contesi on linguistic inclusion in philosophy

Filippo Contesi (postdoc, University of Barcelona) draws my attention to his recent iai news article which contends that:

Given the tendency of native Anglophone analytic philosophers to remain monolingual, the discipline is losing out on philosophical perspectives that are afforded by competence in languages other than English...majority Anglophone countries house only about 6% of the global population. Philosophical discussion is consequently deprived of a huge pool of philosophical talent. Given the tendency of native Anglophone analytic philosophers to remain monolingual, the discipline is additionally losing out on those philosophical perspectives that are afforded by competence in languages other than English.

I'm all for this in principle, as I often come across interesting philosophy articles in other languages and would love for it to easier to find and read such articles (one can always put a document into Google Translate, for example, but in order to find an article in the first place one may need to be able to read the title!). So, I'm curious: how might Contesi's proposal best work? Contesi suggests a number of options, including the 'Barcelona Principles for a Globally Inclusive Philosophy', which hold (among other things) that journals should evaluate submissions on the basis of ideas rather than fluency and seek to include (whenever possible) non-English speakers on editorial boards, etc. I wonder how far this could go, however. Obviously, there are so many languages fluency in more than a few of them can be difficult, and of course it would seem formidably difficult to ensure that journal editorial boards represent most languages on Earth (and find reviewers, etc.).

So, I wonder whether Anglophone journals might instead consider submissions that are translated into English via Google Translate, and then explicitly notify reviewers that this is the case (noting the original language of authorship), instructing reviewers to not hold translation issues or other English-writing infelicities against the submitter. Then, when publishing the eventual article, perhaps the journal could publish it simultaneously in its original language alongside an English translation. Anyway, I'm curious: what do you all think? 

A query on the ethics of authorship

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

What are the ethics of publishing a paper/idea that originated from someone else, given that they consent?

Suppose I came up with a paper for class X. The paper would contribute positively to the debate, and so there are good reasons (independent of the benefits to whoever is the author) for the paper to be out there. However, I don't want to publish the paper because I'm worried it might affect my career (e.g. it defends a political issue like abortion, or it's on a religious topic, or it takes a controversial stance on gender which could result in backlash, etc.). Suppose my friend/classmate/spouse, however, thinks the idea is great and would benefit from publishing it (e.g. they are applying to religious schools who appreciate a conservative stance on political issues).

In short, we think it is good for the community if the paper is published. It dis-benefits me to publish it, but benefits my friend. Given this, is it permissible to give the paper to my friend and for my friend to publish it?

We have two main ethical worries. One worry is that it is objectionable because it is originally my work and my idea. Contra this worry, however, it seems permissible to give my property to others. So, if I consent to giving the idea/paper, then the idea/paper should belong to my friend, who can then use it as his/her own property.

Another worry is that since the main bulk of the work is done by me, it is unfair that my friend benefits. Contra this worry, however, it is not unfair to me since I consent and perhaps I also benefit in other ways (e.g. I get to see the idea out there). In addition, the friend would also have to revise it (especially if major revisions are required after comments from reviewers), and so the friend still contributes.

What are people's thoughts on this?

I have to confess to being very puzzled by this query. The OP seems to be presupposing that the only morally relevant features of the case concern abstract questions of individual property rights and potential unfairness toward their friend. But surely these aren't the only morally relevant things: when one enters a profession (such as academia), one is bound by settled norms of conduct which are grounded in considerations of fairness and rights of others. For example, when one sells a product, one has an obligation not to engage in false advertising, as false advertising takes advantage of third-parties. By a similar token, when you enter into a university, you're bound by a code of student conduct to do your own work and not pass off others' work as your own--even if they give it to you. The same is true in academia more generally: if you enter into the profession, you are expected to publish your own work, not the work of others.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

Everything hangs on the details of the case. If your friend is taken a draft paper you wrote and then submitting it (even revised) as their own, then you have crossed a line. You should read about publishing ethics and scandals in science - in some countries scientists buy papers. This looks a bit like that. If on the other hand, you have drawn attention to a topic and your friend is now going to write something on it, that seems fine. Perhaps ask yourself: would you want this to be made public - including your involvement? If not, then do not do it.

Indeed, this seems exactly right. Perhaps the OP has a libertarian conception of individual liberty and property rights--I'm not sure. But even a libertarian thinks one is morally bound to keep one's contracts, and a decision to enter into a profession surely carries all kinds of explicit and implicit contractual requirements to obey professional norms, such as that people publish their own work. Finally, if the author doesn't want to publish controversial work under their own name out of concern for their career, there's surely a better option--one that many scholars have done over the course of history: publishing under a pseudonym (although it's a bit controversial, there's even a place for this in philosophy). But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?