The Philosophers' Cocoon

Good citation practices?

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

What's the purpose of citations in papers?

I'm having trouble determining the line between over-citing and losing my tone (and risk just saying what other people are saying) but also under-citing (but feel like I'm doing something wrong).

I want to make nods to the literature and earn my way into a conversation through citations - but often, there just aren't people saying exactly what I'm saying and I lose my reader when I try to manipulate citations to fit my project.

Any thoughts would be helpful on people's views of citing other work in philosophy papers!

Good question. I've made my own views on this clear before: I think (A) the purpose of citations is to provide an accurate scholarly record of relevant work that has appeared before yours on a given topic, and (B) under-citation is a bigger problem than over-citation.

Against (A), I've heard some say that they only cite works that actually influenced them. However, I think this clearly misunderstands the purpose of citations, as it presupposes that there are no normative requirements on what constitutes sound scholarship. If one doesn't read the literature and you then publish a paper saying, "I'm the first to give argument X" when other people have given that argument before, but you don't cite any of it because you didn't read it and it didn't influence you, you've done something wrong. You've misrepresented the scholarly record, presenting yourself as providing a novel contribution that isn't novel (you've reinvented the wheel). This is why, in all scientific disciplines, one is expected to begin with a literature review. Yet, in philosophy, I've routinely seen scholars (both junior and senior) give examples on social media of their work not being cited by someone who gives a very similar argument several years later. I've also seen cases as a referee where people haven't cited anything after the year 2000 on a topic, even though there's a ton of work relevant to their argument. Although one obviously cannot read everything, one does have an obligation to be generally aware of what is out there and do due diligence in determining whether someone has given your argument (or something close to it) before. Of course, mistakes may be made, and you may miss something. But if your work cites widely, you've at least shown good-faith effort--whereas if you only cite a small number of sources and a simple PhilPapers search reveals that some of the top results for a keyword search on your topic provide arguments similar to your own that you don't cite, then I think that's a problem.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

We Should Disaggregate Philosophy’s Graduate Admissions, Placement, Tenure and Promotion, and Publishing Data by Mother/Parent Status (Guest post by Maja Sidzińska)

By Maja Sidzińska

How well do mothers fare in graduate admissions in academic philosophy relative to fathers and those who aren’t parents? How well do they fare on the academic job market in philosophy? How well do they fare in achieving tenure and promotion in philosophy departments? And how well do they fare in publishing? Presently, there is no data that could yield answers to these questions. While Academic Philosophy Data & Analysis (APDA) (Jennings and Dayer 2022), Sherri Lynn Conklin, Irina Aramonova, Nicole Hassoun (2020), Schwitzgebel and colleagues (2021), Zippia’s editorial team (2021), and Hassoun and colleagues (2022) disaggregate some graduate admissions, placement, tenure and promotion, and publishing data about our discipline by categories such as race and gender, whether or not members of the profession are mothers or parents is not captured by any of their data.

But we should capture such data. This is because we have information from other professional contexts that shows that motherhood in particular is a key driver of the gender pay gap (Grimshaw and Rubery 2015; Chung et al. 2017), and pay can be understood as a proxy for the kinds of markers of professional success considered above for academic philosophy. The status of being a mother explains up to 80 percent of the gender pay disparity (Miller 2017; Peterson 2024). In other words, it is primarily motherhood, and less so womanhood as such, that is associated with lower pay relative to male peers, and therefore with lower professional attainment. Exact figures are difficult to specify because data metrics, methods, and scopes vary dramatically across empirical studies. It is not always clear whether the findings do or do not control for other variables, for instance, for education or for work experience. Furthermore, studies diverge on the implied direction of explanation, with some suggesting—in line with neoliberal economic assumptions—that mothers’ choices (e.g., to end or pause their educations or careers) cause pay disparities, while others suggest that a lack of quality, affordable childcare causally structures such “choices.” The direction of explanation changes whether a study implies that it’s rational for mothers to earn less or not. And it changes whether a study implies that it is motherhood per se (however it is defined) or whether it is the social conditions under which people mother that causes professional disparities.

MAP Climate Ambassadors

A reader writes in:

Minorities and Philosophy (MAP) and Philosophers for Sustainability (PfS) are collaborating to begin the MAP Climate Ambassadors Initiative. The goal of the MAP Climate Ambassadors is to effect positive change toward environmental sustainability within and beyond academic philosophy by forming a network of MAP organizers dedicated to this goal. Each MAP chapter will be encouraged to have at least one Climate Ambassador. The ambassadors will have the opportunity to collaborate and to attend and organize events focused on strategies for advocating for sustainability. They will be expected to share what they have learned with their own MAP chapters and department. For example, ambassadors might attend one of the Philosophers for Sustainability virtual workshops on the APA Good Practices Guide as it relates to sustainability. Following the event, ambassadors could put on similar workshops on their campus and/or region. There are many ways to participate. We expect that this will be a dynamic group that has a significant impact on the field of philosophy.

Interested in sustainability? Check it out!

'Protecting ownership' of a big idea?

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

How does one protect ownership of a potentially big idea?

How realistic is a fear that someone in the peer-review process will sabotage a paper and steal its idea if they think it is potentially a big idea?

I'm not sure about the peer-review process per se, but I think fears of idea theft aren't necessarily unrealistic or unfounded. I've not only had a few sketchy things happen to me in my career and known other people (including well-known senior people) who've reported similar things. There are also quite a few cases in intellectual history where people took other people's ideas and ran with them. One example is David Hilbert inviting Einstein to give lectures on general relativity at the University of Göttingen (while staying at Hilbert's house!) before Hilbert immediately tried to write and publish a paper to beat Einstein to the field equations. Not that any of us are the next Einstein or whatever, but the point is, there may be people out there who either take big ideas and run with them, either knowing that it's untoward behavior or (for whatever reason) thinking it's just fine to do.

Have other people found this to be a legitimate problem? And are there any ways to protect oneself against it? 

Personally, I've simply tried not to worry about it and simply get on with my work. But, in other fields such as Math and Physics, my understanding is that this is sort of what the ArXiv functions as--a place where one can post preprints to 'establish priority' as it were. Of course, we have something similar in philosophy (the PhilArchive), but I'm not sure that professional norms treat it the same way. What do readers think?

Getting asked to review papers for journals soon after providing authors feedback?

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

I am an early career philosopher currently in a postdoc. I have published enough in a niche subfield X that more established philosophers in TT jobs have reached out to me for feedback on their papers about X. I have gladly given feedback on those papers, either written feedback or over Zoom.

The thing is that the few times this has happened (3 times so far, from different people), I have received invitations to review those papers from top journals within a couple of months. I've never published in a top journal before. I usually accept the invitation, review the paper, and give positive, constructive feedback.

I assume that those established people are putting my contact information as a potential reviewer when submitting their paper. I don't see why a top journal would ask me to review those papers otherwise since I've never published there before. This feels weird because there's an obvious power dynamic at play here: I don't want to say no or give a negative review since the established philosophers would know it's coming from me. I feel like it would hurt my career.

Is this just common practice in the field? You send your paper to a bunch of people and then put them down as potential reviewers? Have I been approaching the peer review process all wrong? Or am I engaging in unethical peer reviewing because I feel like I cannot do otherwise, considering power dynamics? Am I being taken advantage of?

I just received another invitation to review, and it's been making me feel very anxious. I have had a bad year on the job market and received a few journal rejections over the past month. I am just not in a good place right now. And yet, I feel like I must accept this invitation because otherwise, those established philosophers will hold a grudge against me. I also feel silly for *not* doing what those people are doing and sending papers into the void of the peer review process instead of strategizing to make sure it gets in the right hands.

Any thoughts, advice, words of wisdom? Am I overreacting to this?

Wow, I've never heard of this sort of thing happening before. While there could always be a benign explanation (i.e. it could be a coincidence), the fact that it has happened repeatedly with papers the OP has recently provided feedback on seems dodgy to me. If they are attempts to game the system by circumventing anonymized review to obtain a favorable verdict, then I think I'm inclined to say the OP should decline the invites--since, as they themselves recognize, they feel a conflict of interest.

Fortunately, I'm not sure what the OP has to lose by declining, as it's not like journals tell submitting authors which reviewers were approached or declined. 

What does everyone else think?

Norms for service expectations for non-TT faculty?

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

I am hoping to do a bit of crowdsourcing in order to get a sense of the norms of other departments when it comes to non-tenure stream faculty being involved and voting in tenure stream job searches. As a bit of context, I am in my first year as a teaching assistant professor in a fancy R1 department. This year, my department is running two tenure stream searches and one search to hire another teaching assistant professor. Our jobs are intended to be teaching-only with some service expectations (so, no research support, research funding for conferences, grad student supervision, etc.).

These teaching assistant prof. positions are relatively new to our department, and my concern is that the tenure stream (TS) faculty are expecting us to take on many of the downsides of being a TS faculty without any of the accompanying upsides. Our (very small) teaching faculty subset is already expected to run the teaching faculty search on our own (with the addition of the chair, who will presumably be quite busy with everything else going on). We are then also expected to meet individually with all 8 of the flyout candidates for roughly an hour interview, attend all 8 job talks, and pore through all of the 8 (mostly senior) candidates' materials. This will all be happening over the span of about a month, during which time we'll also need to be conducting interviews (and later flyout) for our own job search).

When I think of what TS faculty at previous departments tended to complain to me the most about, it's often been faculty meetings and the work that comes along with job searches. We are already expected to be at the faculty meetings (even if many of them have to do with things that don’t concern us and that we don’t functionally have a say over), which is fine. My thinking, though, is that I am not hired to be a researcher and I do not have any of the associated perks (chance for tenure, research funding, dedicated research time, the option to not always be teaching during department works in progress meetings, etc.) that come with being an R1 TS faculty member who was primarily hired to be a researcher. We are now being asked, however, to take part in one of the more unpleasant duties that would typically come with being hired into one of these positions. 99.9% of the conversations in our meetings so far on the candidates, after all, have to do with assessing the candidates' research. Given the fact that we are not hired (or in any way valued) as researchers, it's hard not to feel like we're expected to shoulder many of the negatives of the TS role without any of the positives (or the pay, prestige, etc.). If we’re being honest, it’s also not the case that any research-related input we might provide when assessing these candidates would be taken seriously.

The reason I am providing so much detail is that our chair seems open to hearing me out on this, and I am hoping to convince him to let us sit the two TS searches out when it comes to voting (which would then release us from some of the aforementioned burdens). I’ve already brought up in passing that the departments I've been a part of have not had NTT faculty vote on faculty hires, but I realize that sample size is small. So, I am curious: Do NTT faculty vote on tenure stream faculty hires at your department? If so, what are the associated expectations? Out of curiosity, I'm also curious how typical it is for NTT faculty to be running their own search (with flyouts and the whole nine yards), but that's the least of my worries at the moment!

I apologize for the long post! I suppose the last relevant detail is that I am legitimately worried about being able to juggle our own search and flyouts, these 8 TS flyouts, and my teaching duties this semester, as I am teaching an entirely new prep with three sections and over 100 students to grade. So, thank you in advance for any advice and/or insight!

I am curious to hear about norms here too. My university's faculty handbook reads, "The departmental service expectations, if any, are expected to be related to a Teaching Professor or Lecturer’s area of teaching. Any additional service expectations must be made clear and explicit by the department Chair and communicated to the Teaching Professor/Lecturer and the Dean." While this in principle leaves it open for non-TT faculty to be asked to do service like that described by the OP, the language is clearly intended to limit service expectations for non-TT faculty, and for my part, I can't remember non-TT members of our department ever being required to serve on a search committee. Hiring recommendations are also made by votes of search committees, not the entire department (though search committees may of course ask what other faculty think of finalists).

What are norms like elsewhere?

Reporting a potentially AI-written referee report?

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

I've received a referee report from a journal that looks very much like it was written using AI. (Five short paragraphs structured like an undergrad essay, vague and general, slightly contradictory---it says my arguments are compelling but there's room for rebuttal.) Should I say or do anything about it?

Good question. Irrespective of how this case turns out, I suspect this is going to be an increasing issue, and it's not clear to me what authors or journals can or should do.

What do readers think?

Norms for citing unpublished (and unavailable) work by deceased scholars?

A reader writes in by email:

I am currently doing some research ... for my dissertation and found that someone else made a distinction I needed... However, in making the distinction, [Scholar X] cited an unpublished conference paper from [Scholar Y] ... Unfortunately, I found that [Y] was very much no longer with us. So, I would like to know, what is the consensus on citing deceased folks' unpublished works? Is there a concrete etiquette here? Is it better to leave it out altogether than try to attribute an unpublished distinction to a deceased person, while the only real knowledge I have about the situation comes from a footnote in someone else's work? 

I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks about this. I don't know of any clear norm on this, and I guess what one should do may depend on what one thinks the point of citations is supposed to be. I've heard some people say they only cite works that influenced them. But, for my part, I think this approach ignores the demands of scholarship: namely, an obligation to actually read and be aware of what's been written on a topic. Indeed, I've always been inclined to think that part of the point of references is to provide an accurate history of ideas, giving credit where credit is due. And, in this case, I'd personally hate to see someone deprived of credit for an idea simply because they passed on before they could publish it. But two things seem to complicate this case: (1) the work in question is unpublished, and (2) the OP has never read it, doesn't have access to it, and only has a second-hand report of what was in it. So, what should the OP do? 

What does everyone think?

Pros and cons of posting unpublished work online?

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

Is it advisable to post unpublished manuscripts online (assuming one has already perfected them based on much feedback from many colleagues)? I have noticed that some philosophers do this, but most don't. What are the pros and cons?

Good questions, and I'm not entirely sure.

What does everyone think?

Norms for co-authorship in philosophy?

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

I would like to hear people's opinion about co-authorship in philosophy. To make my question more concrete, let me cite a specific example. In a manuscript by Samuel Elgin (https://philarchive.org/rec/ELGTGO) who is the single author, Elgin says in a footnote that "I am especially indebted to Pauliina Rumm, who first raised the puzzle of the grounds of nonground to me. Though the theory I develop here is my own, credit for identifying the puzzle goes entirely to her."

Elgin is very generous to give the credit for identifying the puzzle entirely to Rumm, but I was wondering whether Rumm deserves to be listed as a co-author. If the above information is not enough to answer the question, then hypothetically, what kind of contribution to the paper is sufficient for Rumm to earn a co-authorship in philosophy? What do people think?

PS: I notice that Pauliina Rumm had given a presentation earlier in July at the International Wittgenstein Symposium entitled "A Puzzle About Grounding and Specification" (https://centerforgermanphilosophy.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/International-Wittgenstein-Symposium-Program.pdf). But I didn't attend the Symposium so I don't know what Rumm has said in her paper. Perhaps someone who's attended the Symposium can provide some more information.

Because this comment singled out his paper, I reached out to Elgin, who said he's happy to see the issue discussed but shared the following for context:

A bit about this particular case: when I started writing that paper, I reached out to Rumm to ask if she would be interested in coauthoring with me. (In my view, coauthorship would be appropriate given the sizeable impact she had on my thinking).  She declined, because she thinks that I am wrong - and (quite understandably) didn't want to attach her name to a theory she believes to be incorrect.  She may well be developing her own, competing account - but, if so, I do not know what that account is.

This seems like exactly the right thing to do. My own view has always been that if any of the main ideas for a paper come from someone (including, say, a problem the paper addresses), then they should be a co-author--unless, as in this case, they decline because the main line of argument/theory isn't theirs or one they would endorse. I'd add that in general, one should always play it safe and err on the side of offering co-authorship, particularly (though not only) when someone more junior is involved. 

What does everyone else think about norms for co-authorship? 

Kindly giving a 'D' to failing students...and end of the semester "begging" emails?

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

Grading with a straight bat? I have a couple of students this semester who have been completely dire; numerous absences, zero participation, no posts on the discussion board, late and poor writing assignments. On paper, based on the syllabus, they should get Fs. It’s an intro class that is required for all students. Am I a teddy bear for wanting to just give them Ds and send them on their merry way?

Relatedly, any advice about the “end of semester begging email” - this other kid last attended 10/31 then emails me to say that they’ve been struggling mentally, that a friend of theirs died. Hard to verify any of these claims, or what to do if true. Another kid emailed me to say that their parent had died, another that their parent was sick in the hospital, etc.

Hmm... this seems obviously inappropriate to me. If a student hasn't done passing work, they haven't passed the class. My syllabi require documentation of serious personal emergencies, etc., in large part to preempt end of the semester emails like these. But my sense is that some (many?) faculty are way more lenient than I am.

What does everyone think?

Raising concerns about a referee to an editor?

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

Under what conditions is it acceptable to email some journals' editors to say that a referee did a really bad job? Top-3 specialist journal that prides itself on having really great referee reports.

I just received a journal rejection with a kind of experience almost everyone has had. I got 1 great report (not glowing, but they carefully read the paper and raised important objections). And 1 report that badly misread the paper. Given that this specialist journal prides itself on having great referee reports, I wonder if it would be worth it to say something.

What do readers think?

Noting your writing sample as an R&R?

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

I just got an R&R on my sample. Would it be a good idea to include this at the top of the sample? Or would this be a violation of peer-review practices?

I honestly have no idea. As with many job-market and publishing-related things, I suspect there's likely to be some diversity of views here, though maybe I'm wrong. 

What do readers think?

Withdrawing a journal submission: prudential and moral considerations?

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

Whether and when to retract a journal submission? Is delay, silence a good enough reason? How much delay is enough? Prudentially? Morally? Will it be held against you?

I'm pretty sure we've discussed the first question on several occasions. But I don't know if we've ever exactly examined moral and prudential considerations per se. 

Do any readers have any helpful insights?

Is it appropriate to assign some of your own publications in a class?

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

Is it appropriate to use my own papers while teaching? I have relatively little teaching experience but a strong publication record, and I thought it would be useful to assign some of my own work for students to read. The course is within my area of specialization, so my papers would be relevant. I’ve once taught a similar course before, and students mentioned they enjoyed reading the papers I chose for the course. However, a colleague recently suggested that using my own papers in the curriculum would be 'iffy'. For what it's worth, I would also include papers by other scholars and not solely rely on my own work for the course.

This is a great question. I recall seeing a discussion on social media where a bunch of academics came out very strongly against this, saying they didn't think it is appropriate and would never do it. But I don't recall their reasons for the position.

What does everyone think, and why?

Writing a review of a spouse's book?

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

Is it ethical to write a review of my spouse’s book? It’s a groundbreaking work related to my research. Is there precedent of other philosopher partners doing this?

I'm not entirely sure about the answer to either question, but I suspect it's probably imprudent, and as someone who thinks ethics reduces to prudence, that would constitute ethical grounds to avoid it.

Why do I think it's probably imprudent? In brief: there are social norms against nepotism, those norms exist for reasons (viz. conferring unfair advantages to relatives), and this sort of thing may be seen that way. Even if the work is groundbreaking, spouses aren't exactly known for being free from bias, and so I suspect it's better left for other professionals to judge the quality of the work. But maybe I'm seeing things wrong here? 

What does everyone else think?

Asking an editor for an update because you're on the market?

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

Is it unwise to sending a polite email to an editor to inquire about the status of a manuscript with minor revisions? I am going to be on the job market this year, and deadlines are coming very soon. Given the very short turnaround time that they allotted me for the revisions, I was hoping the journal would also be relatively swift with the decision. However, the paper has been sitting at "editor assigned" for a few weeks. Given the real benefit that another publication would add to my dossier (if it were to be accepted before job deadlines), should I reach out? If it's relevant, the revisions requested were indeed minor and mostly took the form of suggestions (rather than actual objections).

Hmm...while I understand the temptation to do this, my guess is that's probably best to let the process play out in the normal way, and avoid inquiring unless the journal has had it an inordinately long time (i.e., many months). Maybe the editor would be sympathetic if you explained the situation, but on the other hand, some might be irked by what they might perceive to be a request for special treatment (compared to the normal review process). But I'm pretty cautious with things.

What do other readers think?

How to list a book under contract?

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

I wrote a complete book draft. It was reviewed by an editor and two referees, it received generally positive reviews with some suggestions for revisions, and I signed a contract. There is, of course, language in the contract about if the book that is delivered is deemed unacceptable, they don't have to publish it.

I'm applying for jobs. How do I list this book draft. Under "Work in Progress"? Or can I put it under forthcoming publications with something like "(under contract, revisions pending)". Would anyone care, as long as its status is clear?

Good questions. I think as long as your CV is clear about its status, you're okay listing it either under Work in Progress or Books. But I don't think listing it under "Forthcoming" work is germane, since it's not technically forthcoming. The key thing, I think, is whether you list it under Work in Progress or Books, you should list it as under contract. If you'd like to say (under contract, revisions in progress), that could be helpful information.

What do readers think?

Pulling out of an unhappy fellowship?

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

I am beginning my second year in a clinical ethics fellowship. I am very unhappy with the program as I think I am not getting what I was promised. Moreover, I do not think that I really fit in with others in the department; something I have not yet experienced throughout my education, so it is quite jarring. During my first year, I gave several talks and published two articles and two commentaries. How bad would it look if I dropped out and went on the philosophy or medical ethics or health humanities markets this fall? Should I just stick it out for another 10 months? I don't know what to do. I have fairly substantial savings, so if I got some random job working at a grocery store or whatever, I wouldn't be too worried about money. Please help

Yikes, I'm sorry to hear this, but I guess I'm a bit uncertain what to advise. If you're deeply unhappy in a job or fellowship, then I think you have no obligation to continue on--but then again, assuming the fellowship is in the Northern Hemisphere, it seems to me pretty late to pull out of it at such a late date.

What do readers think?

Advice for new department chairs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking days off for special events or conferences?

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with an abusive ex-supervisor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you all think?

Citing conference or pre-read workshop papers?

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

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

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

What do readers think?

Citing 'provisionally forthcoming' work?

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

I am working on a manuscript (to be submitted for publication eventually) where another author's paper is relevant. However, this latter paper is listed as "provisionally forthcoming" on the author's webpage. Is it okay to discuss and engage with this paper in my manuscript? The pdf that is posted on the authors' webpage doesn't say anything like "please do not cite" or "please cite the published version", it just says that it's provisionally forthcoming.

Hmm...listing something as "provisionally forthcoming" seems weird to me. But if something is available publicly on someone's website and it doesn't say "don't cite", it seems to me to be fair game. How to cite it is another question? If it's not actually forthcoming, then it shouldn't be cited as forthcoming--maybe as "unpublished manuscript." So, maybe it makes sense to check with the author on what it's status actually is?

What do you all think?

Getting in trouble for posting preprints?

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

Has anyone ever got "in trouble" for freely posting pdfs of their papers on academia, philpapers, etc.?

I guess that there's often some legal contract that I didn't bother reading. I always put all my papers up, since I want as many people to read them as want to read them, and since my guess is that there's zero chance of someone "coming after me," whatever that would look like in this context.

I'd be curious to hear this too. I've always respected the contracts I've signed, but I've heard many people say they don't think there's any good reason to do so given the exploitive nature of academic publishing. Regardless of the moral and legal issues, it'd be interesting to hear what people actually do, and whether anyone has gotten in trouble for this.

Anyone care to weigh in? 

Ethics of post-acceptance edits?

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

What are the limits on post-acceptance edits? Presumably it is fine to spell check, add a clarifying sentence or two, etc. Suppose that R2 asks you to address an objection, so you do. But really you think that it’s a waste of space to address this silly objection so you delete it post-acceptance. I assume that in most cases the editor is not paying such careful attention that you would be caught.

Hmm, interesting question. I don't think deleting something like that is at all appropriate, as the referee(s) and editor(s) accepted the version of the paper that contained the response to the objection. I'm not sure whether I agree that one is unlikely to get caught, but regardless, it seems to me like a bad idea, both morally and prudentially. What if the reviewer reads the paper after publication and complains to the editor? It could give rise to a world of problems for the author that they could have easily avoided by leaving the paper alone. As for adding a clarifying sentence or two, I'm not sure.

What do readers think?

Publishing or withholding ideas one has as a reviewer?

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

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

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

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

What do readers think?

Ethics of serving as an external reviewer in a tenure case?

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

I recently got asked to be the external reviewer of a tenure case (my first). Assuming you have the time and expertise, what're the ethics here? Do you accept only if you can give a glowing review?

Hmm, good questions. I guess I would have thought that if one is being asked to serve as an external reviewer, it is because the tenure and promotion committee is interested in your honest opinion. On the other hand, I could of course understand why one wouldn't want to harm another scholar's chance at tenure if one couldn't write a glowing letter. Anyway, I'm not sure that I have any sense here of what the norms here are.

What do you all think?

Norms for citing unpublished work of oneself and others?

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

When submitting papers for publication, is it bad to cite papers that are in R&R as (forthcoming)? Or is that not appropriate? What is the norm for citing papers that friends or advisors have shared that may not be published yet, but you want to give them credit for the idea?

Good questions. Citing an R&R as forthcoming is definitely inappropriate, as nothing is forthcoming unless and until it is formally accepted. When it comes to citing papers that friends or advisors have shared, I think the best practice here is not only to ask them whether you can cite their unpublished work, but whether you can even use an idea they've shared privately with you. More generally, with matters like these I think the best general policy is to err on the side of caution. If the unpublished work is publicly available online (e.g., on PhilPapers/PhilArchive), then citing it is fair game. But you don't want to upset someone by using an unpublished idea that they may have thought they were sharing with you privately/confidentially. Just ask, and if they say they'd prefer you not to use their ideas, then don't use them.

Or so it seems to me. What do you all think?

A dilemma for a co-publishing couple

In our March "how can we help you?" thread, a member of a co-publishing couple asks:

My husband and I are both grad students staring down the job market soon-ish (he in a year or two, I a bit later). He has a very strong preference to get a job in a philosophy department over the next-best alternative, whereas I feel more neutrally about working in industry, so ordinarily we lightly prioritize his job-market prospects over mine. Being further along, he also has more published work to date.

Although for the most part we work in different subfields, we share most of our interests & commitments, and so have a good number of paper ideas we've come up with collaboratively. On average, I think these ideas are more fit for publications in good journals than the average work we do solo.

Considering such a paper sketch, from a purely strategic perspective, do you think it makes more sense to co-publish them? To have him work on the strong ideas for sole attribution, considering he's closer to being on the market & would benefit more? Or for me to sole publish the ideas I had a greater hand in, considering I am further from being competitive on the job market than he? Besides equity & dual-body problems, I think what this hinges on is how a co-published paper in a good journal is weighted.

This seems tricky to me. I don't know what I think might be best from a purely strategic perspective, but to my mind there are ethical issues here. It seems to me that if a set of philosophical ideas have been developed collaboratively, then even if one person had a greater hand in them, it may be dishonest to publish them as a solo-authored piece. Then again, we often develop our arguments in conversation with others, so I guess I think it depends on the nature of the collaborations at issue.

Here, the OP notes that they think that their collaborative pieces are better, on average, than the solo-work they do independently--and that seems to me to be relevant. For, if the collaborative work really is better, and is likely to find its way into better journals, then putting just one person's name on it conveys that they did better work by themselves than they actually did. On that note, there are professional ethical guidelines for how to determine authorship that many journals require adherence to.

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

 

Handling a rude author as a reviewer?

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

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

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

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

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

What do you all think?

Reducing time to degree in grad programs?

A reader brought my attention today to a post at the Blog of the APA entitled, "Reducing Time to Degree in Philosophy Doctoral Programs." The authors, Martin Willard and Gina Helfrich, write:

In today’s dismal market for permanent academic positions, a median TTD of seven years, together with the refusal of many doctoral programs to disclose median TTDs to prospective students, represents a moral failure. Doctoral program faculty generally accept their obligation to assist graduates in obtaining academic positions (although increasingly these positions are not tenure-track). What should be just as obvious is their obligation not to take seven or eight of their matriculants’ critical career development years with academic programs that do not, for most students, lead to permanent employment.

...

Five-year doctoral program TTD medians are both desirable and achievable. Shorter TTD is desirable for the simple but under-appreciated reason that more than 70 percent of doctoral program matriculants will not obtain permanent (tenure track or similar) academic employment, and current trends away from university instruction in the humanities will only make this situation worse. Philosophy Ph.D. programs with long TTD medians therefore hamper the majority of their students’ career trajectories as well as their lifetime salary potential. Shorter TTD is not only desirable, it is achievable: it has already been achieved outside the U.S., and in the U.S. the doctoral programs at UNC, MIT, Princeton, and Yale have achieved a median TTD of six years or less for many of their graduating cohorts. In light of the limited job prospects for philosophy Ph.D.s in the US and Canada, sustained efforts to reduce the TTD for doctoral programs from the current 6.9 year median are, we believe, a moral imperative.

As someone who barely made it through grad school myself, and who grappled hard with the stress of worrying that I'd spent 7+ years in grad school with few career prospects to show for it, I'm definitely sympathetic to this argument. 

What do you all think?

Submitting to a conference that publishes a collected volume while a paper is at a journal?

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

I’ve come across a CFA for a conference that fits perfectly with some of my work. The call states that the organizers anticipate publishing the conference papers in a collected volume. However, the paper I would present is already under review at a journal (it has a fairly long turnaround time, but I cannot exclude the possibility that the paper might be published around the time of the conference, if accepted). Journal publications are also what matter the most for promotion at my department, so I would hesitate to withdraw the paper from the journal and publish it in a volume. But I would still consider it valuable to present at the conference, as it includes networking, being exposed to new work by others, etc.

Is it considered inappropriate to submit an abstract for a conference without having the intention of contributing to a collected volume? If not, at what stage would it be best to inform the organizers? And would it look bad if I should end up presenting a paper that has just been published ahead of print?

Good questions. I've been in a similar situation before, and was equally confused about what to do. Another reader submitted the following reply:

Until your paper is actually accepted for publication you should feel free to continue to submit it to conferences - you cannot assume it will be accepted by a journal. And conference volumes are uncertain things - these days organizers are under pressure to say such things to the bodies funding the conferences. But they do not all come to fruition, and even those that do can take six years (as I experienced early in my career).

What do you all think?

What to do as an author when a paper takes forever to go into print?

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

What is it permissible to do in light of an accepted paper taking very long to actually reach print?

I have a paper, that was accepted in April last year, but is still "Awaiting Production Checklist". I haven't heard from the journal since it was accepted, and looking through the journal website, it seems like lots of paper take a long time from acceptance to being published online even though they have an online first publication model. (As a side note, there seems to be no pattern as to when accepted papers are published - some accepted more recently than mine have been published, others accepted even longer ago have only just been published - what is going on here?)

My problem is that I want this paper published (not just accepted) so that others might read it, and because I think the arguments could be quite important for the field. I'm also early career, and it would help with my name recognition - I'm also somewhat worried someone might scoop me even though the paper has been accepted.

I have the paper on my website, but I would like it to show up on philpapers and google scholar, so that people can find it. Is there a way of doing this? Alternatively, is it acceptable to upload the paper as a pre-print somewhere (i.e. SSRN) even though the paper has been accepted?

Good questions. I know a lot of people upload preprints to PhilPapers, and I try to do this whenever possible--but I also know that some publishing contracts allow this and others don't. Some contracts only allow one to post preprints on a personal website, for example, others allow the posting of preprints on not-for-profit archives but not for-profit sites (like academia.edu), etc. So, I guess I'd recommend reading one's publishing contract as a first-step.

On the other hand, I've heard some people say that they just ignore publishing contracts, on the grounds that they don't feel any duty to meet contractual obligations with large for-profit publishing companies and are unlikely to get in any trouble for it. Personally, I tend to think that if I sign an agreement, I should uphold it--but I will admit that it is frustrating, as it can probably prevent one's papers from being as widely read as they might if one were to post preprints.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear what other people think. Any thoughts/tips for the OP?

Search committees moving to flyouts without notifying non-selected candidates?

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

It's now happened to me multiple times that I have a first round interview, the school moves on to fly outs, and I hear nothing about it. (I know there is a related, but distinct, issue of a school sending out rejections to some, interview invites to others, and nothing to a third group.)

If you've already interviewed me, I think I deserve your consideration! Also, if you've already interviewed me, it can't be the case that it would be *such* a burden to notify me that you've moved on with other candidates. Lastly, you wouldn't have to tell me that I have no chance to get the job; you could just do me the favor of telling me that you've invited others for a campus visit.

Am I missing something? Is it too much to think that those who have taken the time to interview with schools deserve some sort of timely notice, as opposed to months of silence and inferences?

Fair questions, and I remember how frustrating this was as a job candidate. A couple of readers submitted responses. One writes:

I think it is not an unreasonable expectation to have, but also one thats unlikely to be regularly met. I have had similar experiences and my sense is that programs do not want to close a door unnecessarily (by informing folks they're flying other candidates out) and so they just do not say anything rather than make it harder in the event they want to return to you as a candidate after all (if such dreams exist). That being said, there are places I applied to in the last two cycles (no interview) which never sent a PFO or boiler plate notice when the season was over. I get that admin stuff is tough with so many applicants and institutional requirements, and that often that falls to the college and not the department, but it kind of sucks to spend time customizing job docs and then never be told they've filled the post.

And another:

I am sorry for your experience, and glad that you vented it out. Maybe it's unhelpful, but: while I believe departments can do better, I also understand *why* they are doing that (e.g., logistic complexity, timeline problems, unwillingness for bearing bad news, overwhelmed by work etc). In the short term, I would recommend just getting used to taking silence as a No, or rather, paying no attention until a Yes. This applies not only to the interview case, but also to fly-outs, and heck even after a verbal offer (there could be weeks before a formal approval). It's a long uphill battle. Also, everyone feels different. For some people, it is mentally easier to have no news than bad news. I was one of these (and got quite annoyed by how one department phrased their rejection).

It would be great to hear from other readers, both job-candidates and search committee members. Should search committees do better, or are there good reasons for this kind of practice? Are search committees required at some places not to notify people they are out of the running until the search is complete?

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?