The Philosophers' Cocoon

Philosophical competence, language, and the perplexing Gavagai problem

Many grad students at the department where I work (Saint Louis University, philosophy) are fluent Latinists. In the hallways they make constructions such as these for fun in Latin (I am unfortunately not so endowed, so I’ll give you my approximation in English):  

Q: Whether it is true that there are alligators in Florida?

A: It might seem there are no alligators in Florida, for such reports are no more than hearsay…

In this respect, my department is somewhat of an outlier. Even passive competence in a second language at anglophone departments is at an all-time low, and language requirements at universities are being cut back or altogether axed. This lack of linguistic competence presents a problem: it cuts us off from our own rich philosophical traditions and it prevents serious and deep engagement with other traditions where the primary texts are in languages other than our own.

Christoph Harbsmeier, at a conference in Singapore I attended just now, lamented this loss of language. He is a senior German scholar of Chinese, and spent time in multiple countries. He worked at the University of Oslo, where he spoke with the legendary Arne Naess in Norwegian. In addition, he not only speaks Mandarin fluently (and reads classical Chinese as one might expect from a scholar in Chinese history and linguistics), he also knows Latin, Greek, some Sanskrit, French, German (of course), Polish (which he said he took with the sole aim to better understand Tarski—given the notorious complexity of this language I hope for his sake Tarski was worth it for him), and, of course English.

Each of us ESL speakers has at least two languages, a fact that is curiously regarded as an impediment rather than an advantage because of the worry of non-idiomatic English (see some more thoughts on English as a lingua franca by Eric Schwitzgebel, here).

In Harbsmeier’s view, any philosopher who is only competent in English (or any other language for that matter), suffers a severe cognitive and epistemic disadvantage. The starting point for his talk was W.V.O Quine’s problem of radical translation (discussed in Word and Object, 1960) where a native speaker exclaims “Gavagai!” and you, a linguist, wonder whether this word might mean “rabbit.” In a similar vein, should we translate the crucial Confucian concept of cheng as sincerity, authenticity, or wholeheartedness? The holism inherent in Quine’s conception of language and thought threatens any adequate translation of cheng because to really understand this idea it you must know that Confucianism is among others about self-authentication, getting rid of doxastic and motivational conflicts, and become whole within yourself as you avail yourself of the finely-honed cognitive technology of the rituals of the sage kings of the Western Zhou.

Closely connected to linguistic competence is cultural competence. Harbsmeier agreed with someone during the Q and A that some translations are relatively speaking straightforward, for instance, as his interlocutor said, “a rose is a rose is a rose”—this is, allegedly, a straight botanical fact. However, as Gertrude Stein already implied when she penned that famous line, the point is that a rose is not just a rose. A rose is a flower with rich cultural connotations that vary across cultures.

In a recent public address, Harvey Lederman argues for the disciplinary autonomy of Chinese philosophy. He argues that such work involves, necessarily, a close, patient, unglamorous engagement with the primary sources in their original language, reading them with “rigor, care and precision.” Herein lies an enormous difficulty for those who, like me, merely dabble in Chinese philosophy and only have a bit of Mandarin and even less classical Chinese.

The severe difficulty of relying on translation was recently brought vividly to me in a graduate seminar where my students and I looked at Wang Yangming’s responses to questions posed by students on the Great Learning (da xue), a chapter in a pre-Qin Confucian text. Wang Yangming, a Ming dynasty neo-Confucian author, objects to Zhu Xi’s interpretation of the relevant lines in Great Learning. He says:

And so, enlightening one’s enlightened Virtue must find expression in loving the people, and loving the people simply is the way one enlightens one’s enlightened virtue. (Trans PJ Ivanhoe) 

Wang, unlike his predecessor Zhu Xi, does not think enlightening one’s enlightened virtue (ming ming de) lies in renewing the people but in loving the people. He objects to Zhu Xi’s innovation in this text which had snuck in since the Song dynasty. Wang preserves the older meaning. But how could renewing and loving the people be two such different readings of the same text?

One of my grad students who is Chinese and visiting from mainland China explained that it is a confusion or perhaps deliberate emendation on Zhu Xi’s part where loving the people (qinmin 親民, where the sense of love is specifically proximate or familial) became to renovate or renew (xinmin,新民), that is the same character as for New Years (xin nian). This and other subtleties you will not get if you do not study classical Chinese.

So much of our competence in other languages is down to linguistic luck. You have moved as a child or as an adult, or as in my case, grew up in Belgium where it is obligatory to learn the three national languages (French, Dutch/Flemish, and German) and the education is of good quality. Beyond that, there is a genuine problem of investing in another language even in graduate school. Learning a language is slow, unrewarding, and unproductive for a significant period. You must submit obediently (as Iris Murdoch, I believe, pointed out) to the peculiarities of the language. In that respect, learning a language in its slowness and lack of immediate reward mimics the model of Chinese philosophy as Lederman puts forward: patient, unglamorous, slow.

Our students are already expected to do so much. It is unsurprising that language and logic and other such requirements that emphasize a certain well-roundedness are disappearing as the pressures mount to publish. Whereas it was fine to just focus on coursework in the first years (I’m taking the American context here, I know it differs between countries) they must now also already do “their own” research so as to get ahead in the publication game (as this question by Lila Graham makes clear).

Are rejection rates particularly high in philosophy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

Delays in article production?

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

I've got a paper that has been accepted for publication but has now been 'awaiting publication checklist' for three months without any contact from the journal. Is this normal? Should I follow up at all to see where it has got to, or will this just annoy the editor when they are just waiting for the right time to publish? This is a journal that does online first publication so I don't see why it would get held up for this time.

I've experienced significant delays in article production post-acceptance, particularly after the COVID pandemic. So I don't think this is unusual. But, by all means, if you're concerned, feel free to reach out to the journal! 

Do any readers (particularly journal editors) have any other insights to share?

On the merits of low-key, low-standard philosophy

Reinventing yourself

A blogpost by Liam Kofi Bright on how he no longer believes in his work begins in the following sobering way

For a while now I have been unable (unwilling is what I should say, but from the inside it feels stronger than that) to really commit to doing philosophy research. (I have stuff from before this in the pipeline so it might not be obvious from the outside that I have not been doing new work, but to those who know me this is not news.) The basic issue is that I do not think my work is good or interesting. 

Reflecting on this, and without making any reference to Liam's work (as he requested), I'll offer some reasons to think that the reason Liam offers is never by itself a good enough reason to stop doing philosophy. My claim is not agent-relative. It doesn't matter how good or bad you are. Obviously, there may be other reasons to cease doing philosophy that I think have more merit, such as Mitchel Aboulafia's delightful post on why he stopped writing philosophy altogether. 

What often seems to happen is that we need to reinvent ourselves when we reach an academic milestone. It may seem surprising that defending the dissertation, finally getting a permanent job,  getting tenure, come with this horrible sense of emptiness and slump in work. For tenure, there is the well-known phenomenon of the midcareer slump.

What precipitates this is the falling away of an external motivator (such as the looming tenure dossier, or the harrowing job market). With that motivator gone, we need to find a new motivation for doing our research, and it's not always easy to find.

Submitting another paper to a journal just after rejection?

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

A paper of mine has been recently rejected from a journal. I have another paper that deals with a topic in the same sub-field. Would it be against me to submit that paper to the same journal that just rejected my other paper? I want to submit to that journal because it has a fast response time but would like to know whether it'd be ill-advised or not.

I have to confess that I've often wondered about this too. Generally speaking, I try to send papers to different journals--but on occasions I've sent a paper to a journal that recently rejected a paper of mine because it seemed like a good fit and had a reputation for good turnaround times. However, I've always sort of wondered whether editors frown on it. I do know that some journals have explicit policies, for example that they will only consider one paper by a given author in a given calendar year. But what about other journals that don't have policies like these?

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? 

Philosophy Journal Insight Project

Sam Andrews (University of Birmingham) writes in:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another reader submitted the following reply:

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

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

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

Publishing two-part papers?

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

How do people get two part papers published?

I have a project developing a new view on a topic that I am finding it difficult to fit into anything like the length of one paper (I would like to turn it into a book, but I don't think that is viable at my career stage). Making the positive case for this view and explaining how it works takes about the length of one paper. And responding to existing criticisms of similar, but distinct views, and showing how the new view avoids them takes about the length of another paper. So it seems sensible to split it into a two part paper (which I have seen, but vary rarely). Something like "Exciting New View, Part 1: The Positive Case" and "Exiting New View, Part 2: Response to Critics".

My question is, how do you go about getting such a pair of papers published? Do you simply submit part 1, with the promise of a part 2 to come? Do you submit both parts at once? Is it just too risky to ask a journal to consider something like this? Does anyone have any experience with publishing a two part paper?

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

I did something like this. But my path was different. I wrote a paper - my entry into a on-going debate. But by the time I finished the paper, I had a larger line of argument I wanted to develop, which involved addressing objections to the view defended in the first paper. I made no attempt to integrate the two. After the one was accepted for publication, I sent the other to a journal. I DID NOT title them X, Part I, and X, Part II. I think it would have worked against me. But I did publish them in the same journal - 3 years apart. They are almost always cited together when people discuss the view. One is cited 50 times and the other 51. Good luck

Do any other readers have any helpful experiences or insights to share?

Submitting to lower-ranked journals?

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

This is perhaps a very specific question. I've recently submitted a paper for a prize essay somewhere and was told that it didn't win the prize essay but the panel liked it and asked me to submit it to the journal that was hosting the prize.

The issue is that publishing in that journal sans the prize might be a little underwhelming. The journal itself ranks close to the bottom of Leiter's 2018 list of the top 30 journals and does not appear in his more recent ranking or any of the other lists of top philosophy journals. It is obviously a decent journal nonetheless so it is tempting to just send it there so I won't have to go through the long process elsewhere.

Any thoughts?

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

Go for a better journal. If you are who I think you are, you already have 3 pubs in good places. Another pub in a lesser place is worth nothing.

I'm curious to hear what other readers think. By all means, I think Brandon could consider higher-ranked journals. Why not? At the same time, I want to push back at the idea that publishing in lower-ranked journals is a bad idea or "worth nothing."

I've heard this kind of message often. However, one problem is that, to the extent that it has been studied empirically, the evidence is that it is false: publications in lower-ranked journals help job candidates, and are perceived positively, particularly when conjoined with publications in higher-ranked journals. These findings cohere with my own experience on the market, as well as with data that I informally collected in 2012. Finally, publications in lower-ranked journals can be cited quite often. It's your career. If you want to publish only in top-ranked journals, then go for it! But, if not, the evidence suggests that there's probably little harm in publishing in other journals.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crowdsourcing review times for specialist journals?

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

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

This is a great query. Another reader wrote in:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norms for checking on the status of conditional acceptances?

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

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

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

What are yours?

Publishing a paper critiquing one's own work?

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

I've discovered a weakness in an argument I published recently. It would be very easy to write a paper pinpointing this weakness and strengthening the original argument to avoid it. Is this advisable? If so, how far should I go to hide the fact that I am the author of both papers from editors/referees?

Great questions! There was a great case of this recently, in which Hanno Sauer (Utrecht University) published a rebuttal to a paper he published just a year earlier critiquing the history of philosophy. 

Although one doesn't see this sort of thing very often, I personally think it's a nice reflection of intellectual honesty. We're after the truth as philosophers, are we not? So, if you think something you've published is mistaken in some way, why not critique it? Further, if you can use the critique to strengthen the original argument, that seems to me like all the more reason to do it!

But 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?

Publishing on off-the-beaten track or mainstream topics?

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

I'm a grad student who works on a topic that some hardcore Western analytic people will think is weird/niche/not rigorous/not "real" philosophy.

This year I met someone at a conference who seemed to imply that EVEN IF I were to get a paper in this area published in a reputable journal, people would STILL be skeptical that what I do is worth taking seriously. They suggested that I try and publish on more "mainstream" topics to have a better shot on the job market.

But I would have thought getting any paper published in a reputable journal would have been pretty good evidence that what I do is worth taking seriously. How much weight should I give this person's advice?

FWIW, I would not change the topic of my dissertation to be more "trendy" or "mainstream." All I might do is put significant effort into writing an additional paper that is distinctly more "mainstream."

Excellent question! I think it may be a bit hard to say, without knowing more about the 'weird' topic in question. But when it comes to things like these I have three main thoughts:

1. All things being equal, you're probably going to do better work on things that genuinely interest you.
2. It's possible to have the best of both worlds: to publish on mainstream and niche topics.
3. Standing out on the job-market is important, and you can stand out by doing original/unique work.

Early in my career, the first year or two post-PhD, I worked on topics that didn't deeply interest me, but which I thought I might be able to publish in. Because I wasn't passionate about them, I struggled. As my career went along, I shifted to working on anything that interested me, mainstream or not--and I became much more productive. Finally, as a search committee member, my sense is that many candidates blend into each other by working on similar topics. It's hard to stand out in a job application pile, and working on something unique may help (though, of course, it may depend on what the topic is and how good/interesting the work is!).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Should journals reassess low publishing rates?

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

Philosophy has a notoriously low publishing rate, especially at the better journals, and as compared to other fields. Seeing the recent controversy with Wiley wanting more publications at the Journal of Political Philosophy, and the massive uproar against it, I’m curious why we aren’t looking at this as an opportunity to reassess and justify the low publishing rates. Would quality really become abysmal and journals predatory if the rate goes from 10% to 12% or even (gasp) 15%?

For readers who may be unacquainted with the recent JPP controversy, see here and here. I'm curious to hear what readers think!

When to withdraw a paper?

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

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

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

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

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

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Journals with good turnaround times?

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

About journal reviewing times:

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

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

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

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

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

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

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

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?

Book symposia and published exchanges?

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

How do journal book symposia and published exchanges happen? I can't find explicit instructions on journal submission sites. Are you just supposed to email the editor directly and ask whether they would be interested in such a thing? Is it customary for this to be the author of the book?

Context: I was invited to comment on a book for an APA session, and now I'm wondering how best to transform my commentary into a publication. Maybe that's just to find a journal that would publish it as a book review but (a) my comments are only on one chapter of the book, and (b) the author has a reply, and there is another person who delivered comments on another chapter of the book. Thanks for advice in advance!

Good questions! I suspect the thing to do here is to ask the participants in the APA session whether they'd be interested in a journal symposium and offering to head things up if they are. Then you could email editors at journals where symposia appear to see if they are interested. Alternatively, if others on the APA panel aren't interested (though why wouldn't they be?), I suppose you could see if it's possible to publish an exchange with the author. I'm not sure how common such exchanges are, though.

Does anyone have any helpful insights?

Publishing replies to forthcoming papers?

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

Suppose you're writing a reply paper, but the target paper isn't published yet. The reply is intended for the same journal in which the target paper is forthcoming. Do you need to wait for the target paper to be officially published to submit the reply?

I feel like I've seen this plenty of times. As long as the forthcoming paper is publicly available, it seems to me that journals are likely to consider a response. Does anyone know any differently?

Emailing journals to check on a manuscript's status?

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

My journal submission has been under review for a while now. I want to email the journal to inquiry about the status. How should I write the email without frustrating the editor?

I don't think one should worry about frustrating the editor, provided your paper has been under review a sufficiently long time. Just write a respectful note that you wish to check on the paper's status. Does anyone disagree, or have different advice?

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?

Ideal timeline for publishing in grad school?

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

I am a second year PhD student wondering what the ideal timeline should be for publishing. I plan to be on the market my fifth year, and I know that it takes months (years?!) from first round submissions to having a publication accepted. If my goal is to have 3-4 publications, what's the best way to realistically achieve this?

I have one paper that my advisors agree is basically ready to submit to solid journals, and a second that should be ready in the fall. I am hoping to start drafting a third paper this summer, with the hopes of getting that sent out to journals about a year later (after conference submissions, etc.). Is this too slow? Are there other timelines or strategies that have worked best for other people while balancing other grad school duties?

Good questions. My sense is that if you want 3-4 publications three years from now, you probably need to get a bunch of stuff out to journals as soon as you can. Remember, rejection rates at many journals are upwards of 90%, and just the initial review stage can take anywhere from 3-4 months to 6 months or longer (which, obviously, doesn't include revise-and-resubmits). Publishing a paper can take a long time, particularly if you've never done it before. At the same time, there are some dangers to sending things out too soon. As one reader wrote in a reply:

One quick response to PhD Student on publishing timelines: a mistake I made a few times as a PhD was to send off papers 'too early' while trying to get some publications in. But ultimately this just delayed the process, because those papers were inevitably rejected after a few months and then had to be sent off again. It sounds like you already have a good system in place to avoid this, namely getting a second pair of eyes e.g. your supervisor, and making sure to present your papers at conferences at least a few times before you submit them. I definitely don't think this is too slow!

I had a similar experience in grad school, which was I think the result of me not getting enough "eyes" on my papers before sending them out. So, I guess this is my suggestion: try to send papers off as soon as you reasonably can--but work closely with faculty in your program to make sure the papers are in good shape before you do! But these are just my thoughts.

What does everyone else think?

How to list affiliation when changing jobs?

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

I am curious what the norms/conventions are for reporting your affiliation when changing jobs. For example, I currently work at institution A but am starting a new job in the fall at institution B. When writing down my affiliation—e.g., when submitting to journals or conferences, or filling out a form about how my affiliation on a conference programme—should I write down A, B, A/B (as I’ve sometimes seen), etc.?

Another reader had the same question ("I have the same question as A/B. Should I write down my future affiliation in my current submission?"). I'm not exactly sure what the conventions are, but I guess I'm inclined to say that it might depend on which institution you'll be at when the event rolls around. Will you still be at School A if/when you attend the conference? If not, then it might be a bit confusing to other participants. And I guess I think the same thing probably applies to journals. Maybe list A when submitting, but if the paper is accepted and will be published when you're at B, update your proofs to list B instead?

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

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?

Handling serious copyediting problems?

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

I am having trouble with copyediting of a paper for publication in a philosophy journal in USA. A ‘Journals Production Editor’ (PE) of X University Press sent me a copyedited version of my paper based on the version accepted by the journal (it’s published by X University Press) and asked me to review/correct it and then send back. The journal is not ranked by Leiter. The problem is that the copyeditor made more than 200 changes in the paper, and I think most changes are unnecessary, such as adding 100 “,”, deleting 20 “,”, changing 10 “;” to “,” and 5 “,” to “;”, “but” to “however”, “which” to “that”, many other optional changes, etc. There’s no explanation for any change. Copyeditor also added in footnotes 10 questions (such as "Explain …", in order tone) that are mainly due to their not reading my endnotes (the journal doesn't accept footnotes) carefully or unwillingness to check the cited material and so fail to better understand the content.

PE says if I would like the copyeditor to reverse a change, I should enter 'STET' immediately following the change, and asks me to answer the copyeditor’s questions. I objected and argued with PE, write a long email saying that I should have the right to reject some changes without the copyeditor’s understanding, and that the copyeditor does not seem to have the required knowledge of relevant (non-English) language to understand my paper well.(The paper is in English, but cited many translations) But PE just replies with two sentences: “No need to explain. Simply type “[STET]” following the unnecessary change.” I then spent a lot of time type more than 100 “[STET]” and explained why I reject where necessary, and sent the file back to PE; I accepted maybe 100 changes. But after a second thought, I find that only about 15 changes are necessary. So I asked PE again: Should they ask authors to point out only changes they agree? (The copyeditor’s name is unknown and I only know PE’s name and email.)

I signed the copyright transfer contract 2 months before this. But I just transferred the copyright of my accepted paper, not a substantially changed paper, right? I think the copyeditor and PE are a bit rude, do not appropriately respect authors, and the copyediting process unjustly favors copyeditors. I don’t mind if the paper can be published or not, but the journal editor and anonymous reviewer are good and open-minded persons.

Have you had trouble with copyediting before? And what do you think about this case?

Indeed, I have--not just with copyediting, but with the publication of final proofs. My sense is that these problems have gotten especially bad recently, as journals increasingly seem to either use automated copyediting or outsource it to people who really have no business doing it. I'm not sure what's to be done other, and I don't know what to advise in this case. Do any readers have any helpful advice?

Monist CFPs?

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

The Monist used to have a page on their website that listed CFPs for upcoming issues (all their issues are special issues devoted to particular topics). However, I can't seem to find that page anymore. Does anyone know if it exists somewhere, or where else we can see what future issues are coming/which CFPs are active?

Another reader seconded the query:

I have been wondering this exact thing lately, and have been tempted to reach out to them to ask what happened.

Anyone have the inside scoop on this?

Tips & resources for publishing a trade book?

I haven't asked many questions of my own on the Cocoon for a while, but today I have a few. I'm curious about the process for publishing a 'trade book', that is, a book pitched toward a general audience. I have a couple of ideas for one, but don't know much about the process for actually pitching one successfully. I've heard anecdotally, for example, that one needs to obtain a literary agent first, even before approaching presses. Is that right? If so, how does one go about finding an agent? And, more generally, what is the process of securing a contract like? Does one need to actually have a manuscript drafted (or partially drafted), as is usually the case for academic books?

I could probably find out answers to many of these questions by searching the web, but I figured it could be good to hear from people who have experience in these matters to demystify these kinds of questions here. So, then, does anyone have any helpful experiences, tips, or other resources related to publishing a book for a general audience?

Requesting copyright permissions?

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

I'm thinking of sending a paper to a journal and have only now started thinking about copyright. Do I need to request permission from all the publishers from where I've cited work to include it in my paper?

Fortunately, one doesn't need to request permission to cite work in journal articles. However, there are two things worth knowing that some people might not be aware of.

First, my understanding is that one ordinarily does have to request permission to reproduce images--from journal articles, books, or the internet--including (surprisingly) images one has previously published oneself (e.g., in a previous journal article). I just found this out relatively recently when submitting to a journal, and found it terribly frustrating, as requesting and receiving image permissions can be time intensive and it's not clear to me why one should be able to cite written material with proper attribution but not do the same for images.

Second, my understanding is that when publishing books, one has to request permissions for epigraphs (e.g. short quotations at the head of a chapter) as well as, in some cases, permissions for long quotations of material (some publishing contracts or style guides explicitly lay out how many words a quoted passage can be without obtaining copyright permission).

I have confess that I don't know much about copyright law, but these requirements seem pretty arbitrary to me. Anyone know more, or am I incorrect about any of this? It would be great to crowdsource information about this so that authors know what it is and is not expected! 

Peer review and special journal issues: should early-career people publish in them?

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

When a journal does a topical special issue volume with guest editors, do those editors tend to do R&Rs like an ordinary journal submission, or are they more likely to simply accept or reject? I realize this will probably differ depending on the SI in question, but I am just trying to get a sense of what the process is like before I submit to one for the first time. Do acceptances/rejections tend to happen faster than the usual rate at that journal? Or are they slower/the same?

Relatedly, as an early career person with a real need for more publications, how do special issue pubs look on a CV to search committees? I take it that they aren't as highly valued as ordinary journal publications, but how much lower are we talking? Is it even worth submitting to them if you're early career with minimal publications?

These are all excellent questions. I don't know all that much about exactly how much the peer-review process for special journal issues differs from standard journal submissions, including whether acceptances/rejections tend to happen more quickly for the former. However, I do know that R&Rs happen (I've had some myself), and my (admittedly anecdotal) sense is that when it comes to invited submissions to special issues or edited volumes, there may be some presumption in favor of publication (whereas there is no such presumption for normal, non-invited submissions), and of course the editor for the special issue will know who you are, so the peer-review process won't be triple-anonymized.

In terms of how publications in special issues look to search committees, this is a tough one. A big part of the problem is that a search committee really doesn't know exactly what (or how rigorous) the peer-review process was. My sense is that (rightly or wrongly) some people may suspect that inclusion in a special issue may be at least as much about having good professional connections as it is about the quality of one's work--and this concern might be especially salient if it's an early-career person (and job candidate) who hasn't otherwise published much via the standard in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, I've definitely heard this kind of concern voiced before: that it's hard to know what to make of a candidate with a bunch of invited/special publications but few (or no) standard journal publications.

So, my sense (though it could be wrong) is that if you've published fairly well in peer-reviewed journals already the standard way, then publishing in special issues is probably just fine (and perhaps even a positive)--but that if you have "minimal publications" (like OP states), then submitting to special issues may not be the best way to go. It may make more sense to build up your CV with standard journal publications first.

Then again, perhaps a lot depends on the quality of the journal (e.g. is a special issue of Mind?), and perhaps I'm wrong and  special issue publications look good to some search committees (perhaps at institutions where perceived reputation matters?). Anyway, not sure. What do you all think? It would be great to hear more both about the publication process for special issues, as well as how search committees perceive/weigh such publications.

Publishing a translation in grad school?

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

I work in medieval philosophy. My original training was as a classicist and I love doing translations of philosophical texts. I'm an early PhD, currently teaching fulltime but unassociated with an academic institution, with only only one publication. Both that publication and my dissertation are on the texts I want to translate for publication.

Given my CV, do I have a shot at successfully pitching a translation to a publisher, or should I wait until I've published more?

Is there a chance that a journal could be interested in publishing an article-length translation?

(I'm aware that starting a book/translation project may be a less efficient use of my time than writing articles. That's an important consideration but not what I'm asking about at the moment.)

Fair questions, and I have no idea what the answers are, as I don't work in historical areas or on translations. Anyone who does have any helpful insights to share?

When a journal can't find reviewers?

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

I have a paper that's been under review at a journal for about five months, and not a single reviewer has been found so far. Judging by the updates on the website, it seems that the editor has gone through maybe 3 or 4 reviewers during these five months. This is a well regarded generalist journal.

In my (admittedly short) experience I haven't seen something like this. I'm wondering whether that's a bad sign and I should just withdraw my paper and submit it elsewhere.

I'm curious how the OP knows that no reviewers have been found (in my experience, journal submission portals don't tell you that sort of thing). In any case, if I were in the OP's position and I knew that there were no reviewers after five months, I think I would definitely withdraw and submit to another journal. 

What do you all think?

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?

Norms for acknowledgments?

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

I'm still in grad school and want to submit a paper to journals. There is a place where I'd like to acknowledge in a footnote a committee member's help with specific phrasing. Should I just acknowledge them in a specific footnote or in the general acknowledgement section? My work has also benefitted a lot from discussions with them in general as well as with other committee members, but I don't remember where so will have to just acknowledge them generally. Would it be bad to just cite one in a specific footnote without the others?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I wouldn't give it more than 1/2 a second's thought. Thank them together in the acknowledgements, individually, both, neither, whatever.

Maybe so, but I think it might be interesting to hear from others. I've always been a bit uncertain about how to best acknowledge people in papers, and wonder if there are any particular norms or best practices that people think exist here. What do you all think?

In Defense of Boring and Derivative Philosophy (by J. Dmitri Gallow)

This is a guest post by J Dmitri Gallow. Dmitri thinks about the metaphysics of causation and chance, rational choice, and formal epistemology. He is a senior research fellow at the Dianoia Institute of Philosophy at ACU. This post has also appeared in Daily Nous. 

I often hear papers, talks, or projects dismissed as "boring" or "derivative"—contrasted with philosophy that's "novel" or "insightful." This dismissive attitude is usually directed at (a) work that's conservative, rather than radical (in a sense I'll explain below), and (b) work that's normal, rather than revolutionary (in the sense of Thomas Kuhn). I think the dismissive attitude underestimates the value of normal conservative philosophy. Below, I'll introduce these distinctions and defend normal conservative—and therefore, boring and derivative—philosophy.

As I understand philosophy, it's an attempt to answer the question "How should we think about X?" for values of X where the question isn't answerable by empirical investigation or demonstrative proof. We're often led to philosophy by puzzles in which our unreflective ways of thinking about X are contradictory. For instance, we're inclined to say that losing a single hair won't make you bald, but we're also inclined to say that some people become bald by losing one hair at a time. Once we notice that these things can't both be true at once, we're driven to philosophise; we attempt to resolve the puzzle by revising some of our pre-theoretic ways of thinking about things.

Engaging with philosophical work outside of philosophy?

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

Occasionally, I found other disciplines like animal studies or nursing or jurisprudence also discuss some very general philosophical questions like "what is conceptual analysis". And they do refer to lots of philosophers' work in their papers. My question is whether discussing these works by non-philosophers (not just referring but devoting two or even more paragraphs to discussing their views, putting them on a par with other prominent philosophers) is proper. From time to time, I found some interesting views from their works or their works offer a clearer and more careful literature review.

Another reader responded:

I sure hope it's acceptable to discuss works by "non-philosophers." Why wouldn't it be? Even if we accept the sanctity of disciplinary boundaries (which I think is a mistake), it does not seem justified to limit who's views you discuss based solely on which academic hat they wear. I work in philosophy of science and I hope (*hope*, mind you) that scientists at least occasionally read and take up my work as they have taken up the work of other philosophers of science. I often use a specific scientist's professed views as a foil to philosopher's, and this has allowed me to give a richer exposition of potential viewpoints/arguments/etc than would have been available had I only focused on philosophers. Maybe philosophy of science is somewhat unique in this regard as we are often debating and engaging with the work of historians of science, HPSers, and STS folks. But I'd argue that other sub-disciplines of philosophy should also consider viewpoints and arguments from other disciplines (if this don't do this already -- someone from another sub-discipline of philosophy would know better).

I'm curious to see arguments which push in the other direction. If enough academic philosophers think we should only consider/discuss other philosophers' views, then maybe there is a prudent reason to focus only on other philosophers' views. However, this way of thinking has it's own problems...

I too am curious whether there are other arguments that point in the other direction. I routinely engage with work in other disciplines, and am inclined to think that philosophy is better for it when we do--though I do wonder whether some philosophers might hold it against you in publishing. Some moral philosophers, for example, are pretty adamant that they think empirical work is irrelevant to normative and metaethics. But, I don't think this is any reason not to engage with other disciplines. If you think it's relevant and interesting, I say: engage away!

Boilerplate journal rejection language?

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

Recently got desk-rejected by Ethics after waiting 4 months. The comment " I am afraid, however, that it is inappropriate for the journal." is boilerplate right?

Interesting question. I'm not sure this is boilerplate. I took a look at a couple of desk-rejects that I received from the same journal, and didn't see this kind of language. Curious to hear what others think!

Addressing peer-review bottlenecks in job apps?

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

I am a postdoc on the job market and I only have minor publications on my CV. I currently have three publications under review; one of this paper has been reviewed for a year at a highly-regarded journal in my main AOS and another is stuck in a third R&R round since May. The difficulty for finding reviewers may be explained by the fact that I use an unusual empirically-informed methodology in philosophy.

Would it be a good idea to address the impact of the reviewing bottleneck on my research in my job documents? And if so, how? Instead of directly addressing this situation in my cover letter, a way to hint at this situation could be to add on my CV and/or research statement the dates since my papers have been under review or through R&R. Or, would it be better to have my letter writers addressing this situation in their letters?

These are good questions, but although I could be wrong, I unfortunately suspect that addressing these issues in job-market materials (either in a cover letter or letters of recommendation) is unlikely to help very much. From a hiring perspective, search committees have incentives to hire people who publish enough--and publish quickly enough--to get tenure. They also typically have hundreds of candidates, many of whom have robust publishing records, and who they may favor for that reason alone.

Fortunately, I think, all is not lost. Search committees, at least in my experience, also care a great deal about the nature and quality of a person's work and will sometimes hire someone with few publications because their research is particularly unique and exciting. My department hired someone like that a few years back--someone whose research was so different than everyone else in our pile that we just had to interview her, and she knocked our socks off and we ended up hiring her.

New editorial team at Philosophia

Mitch Green and the Associate Editors at Philosophia write in:

The journal Philosophia has a new editorial team. Mitch Green of the Univ. of Connecticut recently stepped in as Editor-in-Chief and longtime Editor Asa Kasher will remain as Co-Editor-in-Chief with Mitch until stepping down at the end of 2022. (Associate Editor Amir Horowitz will also remain in his position until the end of 2022.) The journal also has a new team of Associate Editors, namely Emma Gordon (Glasgow); Polycarp Ikuenobe (Kent State); Iris Vidmar Jovanović (Rijeka); Jan Michel (Düsseldorf); Linda Radzik (Texas A&M). Kaley Rittichier (Connecticut) is currently serving as Managing Editor. It is expected that at least one more Associate Editor will be appointed in the coming months. Philosophia remains a general philosophy journal and welcomes broadly accessible submissions on all topics of current philosophical interest. Philosophia will continue to commission Author-Meets-Critics symposia, and starting in 2023 will commission state-of-the art essays accessible to a wide audience. Due to the growing number of high-quality submissions, the journal has moved from publishing four issues per year to five.

For more information, please visit Philosophia’s homepage, or contact Mitch Green ([email protected]). Mitch will also be happy to respond to any questions that Phil. Cocoon readers pose here.

 

How are articles in invite-only journals regarded?

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

How are publications in invite-only journals (like Phil Issues and Phil Topics) viewed? These journals often perform very badly in journal rankings (i.e. the Leiter polls), but I have the impression that those polls might be significantly understating the reputation of these journals. Is that right?

Good question. I have to confess that I'm not certain, but I suspect that people might consider papers in these journals primarily on a case-by-case basis (i.e. "you have to read the paper" to know how good it is). Frankly, I think this is probably the best way to evaluate a paper in any journal, but for all that, I suspect that people are more inclined to actually think this way for papers in journals like these (whereas there may be a greater tendency to evaluate papers in other journals by how prestigious the venue is).

But this is really just me speculating. What do you all think? It would be great to hear from everyone, but particularly from people who have served on hiring or tenure-and-promotion committees! 

Acknowledging reviewers properly?

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

Is there a preferred way to decide when to acknowledge a specific reviewer comment with a dedicated footnote, instead of offering a general thank-you in an acknowledgments section? For example, suppose a reviewer recommends I cite a paper that I have not cited, or asks for additional argument in support of a premise. If I make requested changes like these, should I flag them and thank "an anonymous reviewer" in individual footnotes? Or is a single/general acknowledgments note enough?

These are good questions. I standardly acknowledge reviewers in comments, but sometimes also do so in a dedicated footnote here or there to thank them for asking me to address a particular issue or objection, if it seems to me a particularly important one. But I don't have any formula for this. 

What do other authors do/consider to be a best practice here?

Publishing in special issues of lower-ranked journals, or not all?

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

If you have an article/paper/chapter that you are never going to publish elsewhere, is it better to publish it in a special issue of a lower-ranking journal than not publishing it at all? I've heard mixed advice on this.

For context, I'm thinking of special issues of journals most people haven't heard of, but that semi well-known philosophers have published in, or will also be publishing in in the special issue.

I'm thinking well-known philosophers being in the special issue (or in previous issues) kind of "legitimizes" the journal, but when looking at a CV, you don't get to see that, which can potentially be seen as a negative by search committees.

This question is also applicable to "non-elite" edited books (e.g., not Cambridge Companions).

This is a good question. My attitude on this is: if you think it's good work, publish it. There are several reasons why I think this:

1. Empirical evidence suggests that search committees actually look favorably on a CV with 'weak' publications, provided the candidate also has good publications. 
2. My own informal data collection on the job market years ago coheres with this, as did my own experience as a job candidate--particularly for jobs at 'teaching schools', which in my experience care far less about where you publish and more about how consistently you do. In fact, nothing in my experience as a job candidate or thereafter supported the advice that I too was given in grad school to "avoid publishing in bad journals." The more publications in lower-ranked journals I got, the more interviews I got. They also helped me to get tenure, and since getting tenure, I've been able to publish more consistently in better journals.
3. In addition to probably helping rather than hurting job candidates, publishing in lower-ranked journals can build confidence. They certainly did for me. It feels good to get work out there rather than have one's hard work stuck unpublished in a computer folder.
4. Recent evidence suggests that articles in lower-ranked journals are cited quite a bit, which can only help on the market and in a tenure and/or promotion case. Here again, this coheres with my experience. Some of my most-cited work is in lower-ranked journals.
5. It's your damn work! If you think it's good, get it out there. If it is good, then good, openminded philosophers will notice and not care about where it's published. :)

But, of course, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Editing half-baked drafts into publishable work?

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

People say most of the work of writing a publishable paper comes out in the editing process. Let's say you have a first draft. Can you advise on the way to edit a half-baked piece of writing into a polished work of philosophy? Sometimes it's easy to get "stuck in your head" or overly perfectionistic to the point that you give up on the draft altogether. Thanks.

This is a great question, and a couple of other readers submitted replies to weigh in. An Easter Coaster writes:

James, I would do the Mumford method, https://sites.google.com/site/stephendmumford/the-mumford-method with intellectual peers you respect.

I find this an interesting suggestion, because I basically do everything Mumford says not to do! I mostly just draft papers from beginning to end, working out my ideas on paper but using the drafting of the paper's introductory paragraph as more or less the paper's "outline" so that I at least know where I am headed. Then, after a half-baked version is done, I basically go through the paper from the very beginning again and again day after day, progressively refining the ideas and writing from beginning to end. Because I always start from the beginning each day, the early parts of the paper get polished more quickly, but over a period of time the whole thing ends up polished. This seems to work well for me at least, but if you haven't tried Mumford's method, it seems probably worth a shot!

Another reader writes:

I found that making it into a talk helps. Talks are different from papers, but the process of making a paper into a talk really helps myself rethink each argumentative step in the paper. If I can't comfortably say something to an imaginary audience, or find myself being unsure about the transition from one point to another, then I know I need to revise something or rethink the order of presentation.

I've found this to be helpful too, though I normally only do it if I have a talk to give! One nice thing about it is that if you use PowerPoint for talks (like I do), then the size of a PowerPoint slide constrains how much stuff you can cram into a slide. I've found that this is helpful, in that it can encourage you to break each step in the argument down to a clear, manageable number of points (which can also be helpful in deciding where to place paragraph breaks when writing). I'll also just ad that actually giving talks (at conferences) can be really helpful in terms of turning a half-baked draft into a polished piece, as audience feedback can be really helpful in determining what you need to fix/polish.

But these are just a few quick thoughts. What are yours? How do you turn half-baked drafts into polished, publishable work? Any specific tips for the OP?