The Philosophers' Cocoon

Writing tips?

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

Do you have any advice for when one's ability to ask questions and talk philosophy outpaces one's ability to write? How to catch up on philosophical writing in that regard? Thank you!

Good question, and I'm curious whether any other grad students or faculty have any helpful tips. I guess the two tips that I would offer in this situation are:

1. Write every day: make yourself write something like 500 words a day, without worrying about editing. Even if it's just sketching out an argument, the more you write, the better you'll get at it.
2. Consider 'talking out' papers: literally, try to give a 'lecture' on what you want to write, recording yourself. If you're really good at talking philosophy, you might be able to take what you've recorded and translate it to paper in written form. Kripke's Naming & Necessity was a series of lectures. None of us are Kripke, of course, but if you're good at talking philosophy, this approach might be helpful.

Anyway, these are just a few simple suggestions. What do you all think? It would be great to hear from others who have grappled with this issue successfully. Which strategies did yo find to be helpful?

Undergraduate research assistants?

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

My university provides funding for research assistants. But, our philosophy department only has an undergraduate program. The university also encourages faculty to mentor undergraduates. Having an undergraduate research assistant would be a great way to mentor students. With all of that in mind: do you have any suggestions I how I might use an undergraduate research assistant well?

This is a great question! I've never had an undergraduate research assistant, so I'm not sure what to advise. But I'm curious to hear from readers, especially those who have had undergrad assistants before. One reader submitted the following response:

Use them in a manner that will enable them to develop real and useful skills. So design a project in which they could genuinely contribute, not necessarily as an author, but as a research assistant.

What do you all think?

Transitioning to a new AOS before tenure?

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

I am in my first year of a TT position and I am wondering how (or whether) I can or should transition from my current area of research to a new one. I still find my current AOS relatively interesting, but I don't feel passionate about it. I feel much more interested in doing research in another AOS that I have little background in, but it seems like a bad idea to transition before I have tenure (because publishing and letters of recommendation for tenure). I would love advice on how to gradually transition, especially from those who have done something similar, so that perhaps I can make the shift over time while still meeting my tenure requirements. I am already planning on doing the most obvious thing, which is to teach content related to my new area of interest. But maybe there are other things I could or should do?

This is an excellent question. Another reader submitting the following reply:

It is imperative that you get tenure, after the struggle to get a TT job. So, be prudent. I was on the job market long enough - 5 years - such that I had a number of good publications (2 PhilSci papers, 2 PSA, 1 Synthese and others) Further, my first TT job was at a place where I was already upon being hired the most (or second most) productive scholar. I had already begun to publish in new areas. If you are in that situation, transitioning to new areas of research is easy. But if you have never published in this new area, perhaps divide your research time. But it is imperative to get tenure.

And a second reader added:

[L]ife is short so why not? Speaking from my own experience, I transitioned to another area as soon as I started my TT job, and this felt like the force of nature. But I guess we will both need to publish into the transition, in other words, make the transition by publishing. It won't be too difficult, I think, given your publishing experience and your passion in the new area.

These comments are both good, but personally I think a lot may depend here on what kind of job the OP is in. I've heard that at (some) R1s, what tenure and promotion (T&P) committees really care about is whether you are a "top name" in your AOS by the time you come up for tenure. If this is the kind of institution the OP is at, then transitioning to a new AOS could be an immense risk, as it might spread them too thin, distracting them from really making their mark in either AOS (the old one or the new one). On the other hand, if they are at an institution that just cares about publications (e.g. 1 publication a year in good journals), then it may not be so risky to transition to a new AOS...as long as they are publishing. Personally, if it were me--and I did publish outside of my original AOS leading up to tenure at the latter type of institution--I would probably keep my primary focus on my original AOS while beginning to publish occasionally in the new AOS.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear both from people who have transitioned AOSs prior to tenure (how did it work out?), as well as from people who have served on T&P committees either at the department or college level (what kind of institution are you at, and how would a candidate for tenure fare if they shifted their area of focus?). 

Critical reading tips?

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

I’m sometimes wondering whether my approach to reading papers is not critical and active enough, and I think that many weaknesses in other people’s positions slip my attention. I would be interested to hear about your approaches to reading critically. I’m most interested in how actively you engage with the literature, and whether you follow a more or less strict thought process (and if so, what is it?).

Here is what I usually end up doing when I read philosophy: I read a couple of papers that discuss a certain problem or position. But in doing so, I’m usually not following a certain thought process. For example, I usually wouldn’t reconstruct an argument, check its validity, and reflect carefully on each premise, without first having the intuition that it is fallacious, and I usually don’t actively try to come up with counterexamples to general claims that seem unsuspicious to me. Rather, I read until something strikes me as implausible or fallacious. That is, I wait for an intuition that a claim is false or an argument invalid. I’m sure that I would find more things to criticize if I were to read more actively. But on the other hand, this is extremely time-consuming, and the time I have for research is very limited. So, how do you read critically? Do you have tips on how to read more critically without wasting time?

For my part, I don't have a formula here. I just read and if anything pops out to me as implausible, inadequately defended, or invalid, then I'll stop and consider it more carefully. I also like to consider what foundational assumptions are generally accepted in a given literature (not just in this paper or that paper, but across a variety of papers) and ask whether I think they are good background assumptions. But, beyond this, I just read and let the critical part happen organically. 

What about you all? Do any of you have tips or particular strategies you find useful for critical reading?

Tools for keeping track of projects?

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

Can anyone recommend tools (ex: a spreadsheet template or app) they have found helpful for keeping track of multiple writing projects? Like most academics, I currently have lots of different, "big" projects, and I find myself spinning wheels going from one to the other trying to figure out what needs to be done next when. I know it helps to break big projects into daily and weekly goals, and I'm wondering if there is a tool that lets you break down several projects and plot them on a calendar, so that I can look and say "ok, tomorrow I need to revise section 2 of the R & R and draft the introduction to ch.3 of my dissertation."

Good question! Unfortunately, I don't have any suggestions, as I don't keep track of things anywhere. ;) But I expect that some of you are more well-organized than I, so I'm curious to hear which kinds of tools are out there.

Work habits on the tenure track?

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

As a (very) early career person, it would really help me to know how later career people spend (or spent, when they were on the tenure-track) their average week. How much time to you dedicate to writing? How do you make sure you are setting aside the right amount of time for editing / pipeline type work (responding to reviews, getting papers submitted) vs creating type work (developing new projects, drafting new paper sections)? I'm finding it difficult to navigate this and am curious if others have systems that work for him. I expect this varies widely, but it would still be helpful to hear about others' experiences.

These are very good questions, and I am very curious to hear how readers respond. It is difficult for me to give a simple answer in my own case, as during my time on the tenure-track (and post-tenure) my work habits have varied tremendously. A lot depends, I think, on how in need of publications one is. When I needed to publish a lot, if I had a two-day-a-week teaching schedule, I would basically spend the other three days of the week writing. On the other hand, during times that I didn't need to publish a lot or had a three or four day a week teaching schedule, there have been entire semesters when I've gotten very little writing done--and, in any case, I get the vast majority of my writing done during winter and summer breaks. In general, I've found it pretty difficult to shift-gears between teaching and research on "teaching days", and have friends who report the same thing--though maybe things are different in R1 jobs where one has a very light teaching load.

In terms of how I partition my writing time between pipeline-type work (editing pre-existing papers, completing R&Rs, etc.) and drafting new work, I'd say it's roughly 50/50. On writing days, I'll usually spend the first half of my day (say, 9am-1pm) drafting new work, and then the afternoon (2-5pm) on pipeline stuff. I will say that my sense is that it is vital to always be drafting new things. Most of the people that I know who are the most successful (including in terms of receiving tenure) are people who consistently publish a lot, and hence, always have quite a few things under review at any given time--which requires producing a lot of new work pretty consistently. 

But these are just my habits and experiences. What are yours? It would be great to hear not only from those on the tenure-track who are pretenure, but also (for obvious reasons) from those who received tenure. What does your average work week look like, and how do you partition your time between teaching and research, and between drafting new work and work in your pipeline?

Learning how not to rely on one's PhD advisor

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

I don't think I'm alone in this, and I'm looking for advice from those who've gone through it or something like it.

I have an excellent relationship with my advisor. With his guidance, my mediocre ideas become significantly less mediocre, and even, on occasion, quite interesting. I've worked with other professors and, to be honest, we're on the same wavelength in ways that I haven't experienced with others.

While I'm incredibly grateful to be working with them, I'm also a bit anxious about what's to come. At some point, I'll move on, ideally to a job, and it will be less and less appropriate for me to lean on my advisor to lift up my work and make it more intelligible. What can I do to prepare for this? Should I just hold on as long as possible? Will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?

These are very good questions. Timmy J. submitted the following response:

My own adviser told me that most of the point of grad school is to get voices in your head. You get your adviser’s voice is your head. You get some of your cohortmate’s voices in your head. Maybe you get frege or Kant or whoever’s voice in your head. Then you leave but the voices stay and some large portion of the help they could give before they can still give later, albeit in a disembodied way. Yeah yeah it’s weird and mystical and whatever. But it sorta helps me deal, and maybe it’ll help you too.

This seems right to me (I still bear in mind many lessons that I learned from my advisor). However, I don't think they are the only way to handle the OP's situation--and I also think it can be critical to develop one's own voice, as it were, becoming one's 'own philosopher' (there are, for example, some preconceptions about research that I was taught in graduate school that I now firmly reject). In any case, what other strategies are there? One strategy that I have seen is for people to slowly wean themselves off of their advisor, staying in close contact with them for their first few years out of graduate school, meeting with them via Zoom, sharing work, etc. My sense is that this can work if one's advisor is a caring and conscientious person, particularly given that advisors can want their former students to succeed. Not all advisors are like this, however--and so, one might very well find oneself 'ripped away' from being able to rely on them. In that case, my sense is that one's situation can be very much akin to being thrown into the deep end of a pool and simply having to learn how to swim. 

Long story short, I don't think there's just one way to answer the OP's questions. I think a lot depends on you (are you 'naturally independent' or someone who really needs support networks?), on your advisor (are they willing to stay in close contact and be helpful once you graduate?), and on context (is your first job out of graduate school in a large research department or small department with high teaching loads?). Because things can differ so much, I'm very curious to hear from readers. How did you handle the kinds of issues the OP asks about? Did your strategy work well or not?

Finally, I do want to say a few things about the OP's third and final question: "will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?". My sense is that you probably will. My own advisor once told me in graduate school that at some point, one undergoes a transformation of sorts. You begin to realize that, whereas for your entire academic career as a student, you had to satisfy your professors with your work, now the main person you need to satisfy is yourself. Sure, you need to convince referees to publish your work. But, at some point, you'll get a sense of how to do that while being the kind of philosopher you want to be. And, in my experience, it can be a really wonderful experience, generating not only a kind of confidence in your work, but indeed, a kind of confidence that doesn't depend so much on others for validation (which, I think, can be a really liberating experience). But again, this is just my experience. What's yours?

Alex Guerrero (Rutgers) on research methods

Over at Daily Nous last week, Alex Guerrero (Rutgers) shared some really helpful advice for applying to PhD programs. But, in addition to being helpful for grad applicants, I actually think his remarks on writing samples may be helpful for graduate students and other early-career scholars who are struggling to publish. Here are the key passages that I have in mind:

Let me begin by saying some possibly controversial things about how good philosophy comes into existence. I’ll begin by describing a method that rarely works. First, start with an interest in some topic that has been discussed a lot by philosophers. Second, read everything on that topic, over a long time, keeping kind of neutral notes on the views throughout. Third, try to think of something new to say. Disaster!

Maybe some people can do it that way, but it’s very hard to find your voice and keep your passion and energy throughout that process. Instead, you learn about the 18 moves that have been made, the 14 positions in logical space that have been occupied (like tanks running over flowers), and you can maybe spot another 2 or 3 that haven’t been occupied. You can write a paper that takes up one of those, but often you aren’t really excited about that position, it’s just kind of left over. And maybe for a reason…

Much better: start with something that is bugging you or disturbing you. Maybe it’s an actual thing in the world that is happening. Maybe it’s an idea that was presented in a class that just seems wrong somehow. Maybe it’s some text or topic that seems philosophically interesting, but which no one is talking about. Maybe it’s just a way of looking at things that comes to you from who knows where, while your mind wanders around (like flowers growing over tanks).

What I find so interesting about this is that the first method--the method that Guerrero says rarely works--is the one that I initially adopted when trying (mostly in vain) to come up with a viable PhD dissertation topic. After my comprehensive exams, I spent something like one-and-a-half years doing just that: reading everything on moral motivation, taking copious notes, and trying to come up with something new. It was a disaster. I found myself in exactly the position Guerrero describes: I knew the "14 positions in logical space" that everyone had already occupied, as well as the 2 or 3 that hadn't because, well, those positions were obviously wrong. So, I couldn't come up with anything! It was like running into a brick wall, day after day after day. Then, I did what Guerrero says to do instead. I found something that was bugging me. I read Rawls again, and noted that he never did nonideal theory in any kind of systematic way, and that no Rawlsians really had either. So, I immediately had an idea--to use Rawls's machinery to develop a nonideal theory of justice--and wrote a dissertation on it. Just like that!

Anyway, it's really amazing what a simple change in research methods like this can do, so I figured that I would not only share it--as I expect there are probably grad students and early-career philosophers who are struggling to come up with dissertation ideas and publishable work. I also figured it might be good to see (1) whether other readers have found Guerrero's approach to research beneficial, and (2) whether you have any research tips of your own! Any readers care to weigh in what you've found helpful in coming up with good research ideas or otherwise being productive as a researcher?

Tips for (pre-tenure) research leave?

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

I am newish assistant professor at a school with a medium-level teaching load, where I am fortunate to get a guaranteed pre-tenure research leave (one semester at full salary or two semesters at reduced salary). I would love to hear tips from readers about how to make the best use of this time. Here are some specific questions. Where might I look for funding to support the longer leave? And then, assuming I can swing that financially, what are the advantages and disadvantages of staying put vs. going somewhere else as a visiting scholar? At present I am slowly recovering from burnout related to making a number of demanding life transitions during the pandemic and I am instinctively resistant to any more upheaval. But I fear I might regret not taking the opportunity to travel, especially since I am not an a research-intensive institution and do not have much local accountability for my scholarship.

Good questions! As far as funding is concerned, visiting fellowships seem to me to be one obvious answer--but as the OP notes, moving for a fellowship could involve quite a bit of upheaval (moving to a new place). So, it could be good to hear from visiting fellows/scholars whether it is worth it. Grants are another obvious source of funding, though they can take a lot of time to apply for and be hard to get. So, I'm not sure what to recommend here, especially given that I've never had a research leave myself. Finally, in terms of making the best use of one's time, I guess I expect that a lot turns here on how one works best--but, in my case, I find it's usually a good idea to have an idea of which projects I want to write on before I have time set aside for it. My guess is that one way to "waste" a research leave is not to have any good idea what to work on, and then spend most of the leave reading and trying to come up with ideas. So, I guess I'd say: have a clear picture of which projects you want to work on and (roughly) how you think the projects should go. Then spend the research leave focusing on writing, etc.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? For obvious reasons, it would be great to hear tips from people who have had research leaves themselves (both tips on things to do, but also potentially things to avoid!). 

What are standards of co-authorship?

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

What are the standards of honest co-authorship in philosophy? I have recently been asking around to fellow grad students, and in one case, one person reported drafting the entire paper by themselves, receiving feedback by their supervisors, and being asked to add their names as co-authors. In another case, the student recounted a similar story, except this time they acknowledged that the more senior person's ideas were what made the paper worth submitting to a journal in the first place, even though the student wrote the draft entirely by themselves. In a third case, the student researched and wrote all but the introductory/'background' sections of the paper, but the paper is still billed as an even co-authorship. Are these students being exploited, or is this normal?

These are excellent questions. Given that co-authorship is relatively uncommon in philosophy (but seemingly increasing!), I'm hoping we can have a good discussion. One reader submitted the following response:

I work on authorship, and I have co-authored with a number of people, junior, senior, and peers. This is a complex set of questions you ask. Further, one cannot reliably know what happened if you just hear one person's story. The other co-authors might see things very differently. If the various students you mention feel exploited, then they need to talk with an ethics person on campus, that is, someone involved in research integrity. At many universities there is usually a committee. But they can initially talk with a member of such a committee.

I think this follow-up is broadly correct: co-authorship is complex, and as a spouse of someone who works in a STEM field, I've experienced many of these complexities second-hand. My sense is that in science, there doesn't seem to be any exact standard of how to settle co-authorship (including the order of co-authors listed). Instead, there appear to be some general rules of thumb that co-authors often broadly negotiate these matters according to, but which are not always respected (and indeed, in some cases--all too many cases, in fact--abused). Allow me to explain, and then open things up for discussion.

Should dissertations be cited?

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

I would like to hear people's thoughts on how much credit a dissertation deserves.

Here is what I mean. On the one hand, almost all dissertations contain some original theories, arguments, ideas, etc. While dissertations are not academic publications (in the US), they are "publicized" and publicly accessible (on ProQuest, for example).

On the other hand, since dissertations are not regarded as publications, people usually do not give credit to them. People do not read them unless someone is interested in a topic and happens to know that a person wrote a dissertation about it. And I suspect that few journal reviewers would say that the main argument in a paper is not original because someone has developed a similar theory in their dissertation. Even if you are the first person to develop a theory in your dissertation and your dissertation is publicly defended and officially online, the credit almost entirely goes to the person who publishes it; in some cases, this person would not be you.

It makes me feel that dissertations should deserve more credit. Publishing a dissertation, or chapters of a dissertation, is not making some thoughts and arguments officially public from one's mind; rather, it is a process of changing where it is publicly--from ProQuest to somewhere else.

I know that in some countries dissertations must be published as books when they are finished, I personally believe that is the right way to go. What do you all think?

Another reader submitted the following response: 

I think you are overthinking the notion of credit. There is no central body - not even the APA - who tells people what credit things deserve. Credit, in one sense, is a function of the value others put on something. This is how credit is understood in science, at least by scholars in science studies, broadly construed, including Robert Merton and David Hull, for example. So you do not deserve anything for a PhD but the PhD itself. If there is more of value in it, then send it out to journals. I published 4 articles from my PhD. I got out of it all there was in it. Similarly with citations. If no one is citing your articles it may be because no one finds them of value. I have articles that are often cited (100+ times), and ones that largely neglected. I can like some of the latter more than I like some of the former, what people have valued in my scholarship is what they have cited.

This is an interesting response, in part because I have a different reaction. So I am hoping we can have a good and interesting question on citation and credit-giving practices, and I am curious to hear what everyone else thinks!

Extra financial (e.g. research) support?

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

I am wondering about ways to find rather small financial support for people from places with less resources available to them. Say I want to focus on a research project, attend a workshop, or spent a short visit here and there. I might be able to get some support but, due to many factors including differences of currencies and else I cannot solely rely on that. What else I can do? What are the possibilities?

Here’s an example. At times I think whether I can suggest to present a short course or a similar teaching service to finance a visit to that center/department. But not being from Europe, I don’t know the opportunities, possibilities, and the norms. Any advice would be appreciated.

Good questions, and I'm not sure--especially since the OP seems to be in Europe and I have no experience there. However, the thought that immediately occurred to me is: grants. In addition to government or private grants, many universities (at least in the US) also have smaller internal grants one can apply for (e.g. on the order of several thousand dollars or more). Alternatively, if you can give talks at other universities, they may be able to offer you some sort of honorarium. But, in addition to these things, I'm not all that sure what the options or opportunities here are. Any readers have any helpful tips?

Dealing with undercitation in philosophy? (Guest-post by Ten-Herng Lai)

Ten-Herng Lai (Australian National University) writes in:

I understand that pretty much the same issue was discussed here around 2015, but I think it is important that we bring it up again. I believe that literature review and under-citation is a problem in academic philosophy. Here I can only provide some personal experience as a journal reviewer. It may be that I’m not being a very good reviewer. I’m open to this possibility, and if so, please simply point it out.

I am a very junior scholar, but was fortunate enough to publish a paper in a decent journal on an issue that proved to be quite topical. So I get these invitations to review, several of them. Last time I counted, there are at least 20+ papers published in print or online first on this topic since 2019. A good portion of papers I reviewed cites almost none of them, as if the issue was uncharted territory. Some papers have very good insight, but fail to engage with the literature at all. Some papers just reinvent the wheel. Occasionally there are some papers that make good proposals but would be much better if taken certain points others have made into consideration.

Here’s what I did as a reviewer. I would encourage them to at least say “Archer (2020) Bard (2018) Cleric (2019) Druid (Online First) have all suggested certain solutions, but mine is different and covers an ignored but important point.” Better is that they say why their point is better, or at least distinguish their own point from those made by others. Sometimes I suggest that they can simply cite and rephrase a “respond to objection” someone else already made, instead of writing a separate response to some objection that has already been responded to like 5 or 6 times in different papers. Some more particular points may be that the author(s)’s solution can be combined with someone else’s solution to become even better.

I hope what I did as a reviewer helped to improve the quality of those papers, even if they were not accepted in those particular journals. I sincerely believe that doing some literature review and actually engaging with some previous papers enhances the quality of papers. (And I admit sometimes I see some papers published that fail to do so, and are of very bad quality, e.g., proposing points that have been utterly knocked down by previous publications. I don’t know how they went past the reviewers in those journals...) I also believe that there seems to be some sort of disrespect going on when not engaging in previous publications enough. Probably it’s some sort of arrogance, believing that one has “discovered” something new, just like (though obviously less serious than) how Columbus “discovered” America and how Captain Cook “discovered” Australia.

I agree that this is a problem, and have heard other people say similar things. I also agree think that what Lai did here as a reviewer is right. But this raises an obvious question: what else can/should be done to address under-citation in philosophy? I have two ideas, and am curious what other readers think, including whether readers have other suggestions, as well.

Getting well-known people to read drafts?

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

[I] often see philosophers thank people for helpful comments on earlier drafts of a published paper. And they are usually thanking the 'big names' in the field. My question is, how do I get these people, the 'big names' in my field, to read drafts of my papers? I assume most of this happens at conferences. But how do I figure out which conferences these people attend so that I can also attend and hopefully get them to comment? Are there certain conferences in a given sub-discipline that most people working in that sub-discipline are likely to attend? How do I find out which conferences those are?

I expect some readers may be puzzled by these questions: why care about getting 'big names' to read paper drafts? It's not as though one has to do that in order to publish effectively, right? Although the OP doesn't say, I expect there may be several reasons why they might care about this: (1) to get better feedback (i.e. from top experts in their area), and/or (2) to get their work noticed. Anyway, regardless of their reasons, the Cocoon is here to help.

Starting v. finishing papers?

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

I have questions about writing papers. Specifically:

how do I finish them?

does everyone else find them as difficult to finish as I do?

It has been five years since my Phd and have managed to publish some stuff that I am happy with. I have never found starting writing particularly onerous, and generally enjoying getting the first 80% down. But, I always find the last 20% –actually getting the thing into a submittable state takes me an enormous amount of time.

Right now, I have a more than 80% of a paper finished –but it has been at this stage for the last month despite me working on it pretty much every day.

I find that a paragraph that I need to fix/alter slightly/rewrite will lead to me needing to fix/alter/slightly/rewrite another part of the paper. And so on...

So, I guess a couple of things could be happening:

1. Many people go through something like this and it is just a normal part of finishing papers.

2. I am doing something wrong. perhaps I need to get ideas more clear in my head before I start writing?

Yeah, I think this is totally normal--or, at least, it's something that I struggle with too. I love drafting new papers. Finishing them, on the other hand, is the tricky part. It takes a ton of polishing, and this in my experience is the least fun and most difficult part to do. You constantly fiddle with things, insert and remove things, second-guess yourself, and so on. I currently have maybe ten papers like this that are 80-90% done, but which I'm finding it difficult to polish into the kind of shape that I'm happy enough with to submit. And what often happens is that I have an idea for a new paper, so I'll begin drafting that up because I find that more enjoyable (this is in part the reason why I have so many papers in the 'polish' stage). 

Maybe the OP and I are outliers in this regard, I don't know--but I suspect not. Any readers care to weigh in? And any tips for the OP to help them get to the finish line more quickly?

How to juggle projects effectively?

A reader writes in:

I'm looking for some advice about how to juggle different projects.  I put together a draft, sent it to a few folks for comment, and I received back one set of thorough comments already.  I'm wondering: Is it better to stick with one paper all the way through til it's ready to be submitted somewhere? --the idea being I have the material in my head so it's good to work on it while I have it all well-rehearsed.  Or is it better to sit on some of those comments and work up a different paper draft altogether so that when I do come back to the first project, I'll be looking at the comments and my own work with fresher eyes?  Bear in mind, (1) I have zero pubs and (2) I'm not talking about drafts that are submission ready nor am I talking about drafts that have been commented on by journal reviewers.  Maybe I'm asking a broader question related to a fruitful publishing program: is it better to complete one thing at a time start to finish or to have several papers going at any given time?

These are really great questions. Although everyone works differently, my sense is that it may be a mistake to focus on just one project at a time. For better or worse, academia has become progressively more competitive. Job-candidates seem to have more publications than ever before, and so to be competitive on the market (and then, for tenure) one must publish quite a bit. And unfortunately, focusing on just one project at a time doesn't seem to me to be all that conducive to this--as to publish a lot, one has to get a lot out for review, and to get a lot out for review, one has to (I think) be drafting and revising multiple projects at any given time. Maybe this is wrong, and if so, I'd be curious to hear from readers who work on just one project at a time and are successful that way. In any case, I don't work that way. Allow me to briefly explain how I work (and why), and then open things up for comments.

Maintaining a (coherent) research program?

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

I'm 5 years post-PhD and have been publishing at a modest rate since then (about 1 article per year), and I'm starting to find it a bit onerous to keep track of my own research program. Now when I'm editing new drafts I find myself always uncovering thorny issues with subtle details of how the new paper fits in with my previous ones. I would love to hear if others have found effective ways to manage and streamline this part of the late-early-career writing process. I feel like I'm always having "Oh shit, I can't say that because..." moments fairly late in the game and then scrambling for a solution. I work in a so-called "core" analytic subfield, in case that's relevant.

Interesting query. I'm nearly 13 years (!) post-PhD now and have published quite a bit, and I haven't really encountered this difficulty. I guess I'm a bit puzzled by the OP's thought that they can't say something in a new paper because of something they have written before. Is their thought that everything they say across different papers must be entirely consistent? If so, I'm not sure that I think one needs to do that! Why not follow the arguments where they lead, publish things that are in tension with each other if that's where the arguments lead, and then perhaps explore and try to resolve those tensions in future work?

How (much) to read (and take notes)?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'inexperienced scholar' writes:

Standard advice for paper writing is not to let reading keep you from writing. However, I often choose to write about topics that involve extensive research, partly because I don't have any time constraints on my writing and I write out of a love of the craft. Right now, I have my outline and some of the paper written, but being still new to the process, I wonder how much reading is too much and how much is too little. Do professional philosophers take extensive notes on the literature they read? I tend to engage with lesser known scholars in the field as well as the big names, but I must admit that I have a compulsion to memorize and extensively document what I read, some of it primary lit and much of it secondary. Any advice as to how to manage reading in a way that is conducive to proper research, while not drowning oneself in papers?

This is a good query, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Allow me to share a few brief thoughts before opening things up for comments.

How do you decide what to read?

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

I'm a second-year PhD student, and I often struggle with deciding on what to read at all, how to prioritize the reading assingments I give myself, and how thoroghly I should read a text. As my time and my ability to focus are limited resources, I often find myself doubting whether a paper or a book I began to read is really worth the time, and whether I should rather read something else instead. These doubts occur quite frequently, and I begin to jump back and forth between papers and rarely finish one. Maybe one could describe this as a kind of fear of missing out on the most important readings. I would like to know how other people approach these problems.

This is a good query. In my experience, one of the traps that graduate students can run into is reading too much. Of course, it's important to read, so that you have a good grasp of the literature. But when I was in graduate school, I knew fellow grads who spent most of their time reading and little to no time writing--and it very much stifled their progress through the program and in publishing. So, it really is crucial to find the right balance. But what is the right balance, and what are some practical tips for finding it? I'm curious to hear what readers think. Obviously, I'm not a grad student, so my own approach may not generalize to the OP's situation. But here, very roughly, is how I go about things...

What you 'should have read' & are glad you did?

Last week, we had a fun, guilt-free thread where readers shared examples of philosophical works that they are "supposed to have read" but haven't. This week, I'd like to have another thread that turns this on its head: what philosophical work(s) are you supposed to have read that you were (perhaps unexpectedly) glad you did, and why?

I'll start things off! I have to confess that until a week or two ago, I had never read most of Alasdair McIntyre's After Virtue. I had read small bits and parts of it before, mostly because those bits had been cited in the literature and were relevant to things I was working on. But I had never sat down before and read the book from beginning to end--and I'm glad I finally did. Like some of the book's critics, I don't quite buy the book's positive argument. But what I found really insightful, deep, and plausible is the book's negative critique of contemporary ethics and the implications that the problems with contemporary ethics have had in modern society. I also very much enjoyed MacIntyre's writing style and manner in which he situates the book's philosophical theorizing in history.

To simplify greatly--and really, I encourage readers to check out the book itself--McIntyre's basic idea is that throughout most of human history, 'the moral' wasn't taken to be a distinct category of reasons or requirements (indeed, he argues, some historical languages haven't even had words that correspond to the modern notion of 'morality'). Rather, prior to the Enlightenment, the fundamental normative notion was to live a good life, where this conception of 'morality' (as it were) in no way divorced 'moral reasons' from descriptive psychological motivations or posited any 'is-ought gap' (McIntyre gives a rather quick yet masterful analysis of how, absent the modern philosophical insistence there is such a gap, there are plenty of intuitively valid inferences from what is to what ought to be). McIntyre then argues that the modern philosophical insistence of schisms between is and ought (qua Hume) and between moral and non-moral reasons (qua Kant) have been bad for moral philosophy and practice, by pushing them in two opposing directions: in the direction of mind-independent moral realism, on the one hand, and emotivism on the other. His critique here--again, to simplify greatly--is that both of these doctrines are problematic, turning morality either into a set of essentially contestable moral intuitions about what is right and good (here, MacIntyre notes how many modern moral debates appear to be based upon incommensurable intuitions), or mere appeals to emotion. 

Whatever you think of these negative arguments (and you might not be convinced!), I found the way that MacIntyre defends them both plausible and exciting to read. This is just one recent example of a philosophical work that I was 'supposed to have read' but hadn't. There are many others, as well. Another, less recent example is Charles Mills' The Racial Contract, which I read for the first time about nine years ago. I remember reading the book distinctly because (A) I had surprisingly never been exposed to it either as an undergraduate or graduate student, and (B) when I read it, I found Mills' account of how seemingly anti-racist liberal ideals can serve in practice to uphold white supremacy enlightening and important. While I'm not persuaded by Mills' longstanding critique of Rawls and ideal theory (see here, here, and here), I nevertheless found The Racial Contract to be an exciting read as well, one that has influenced me deeply as a researcher and teacher ever since.

Anyway, these are the two examples that most obviously spring to mind for me. What about you? Which work that you were 'supposed to have read' did you find exciting and important when you finally did get around to reading it, and why?

Should philosophers lead interdisciplinary projects? (Guest post by Mandi Astola)

One of the Cocoon's readers, Mandi Astola (PhD Candidate, Eindhoven University of Technology), submitted the following guest post:

We are doing interdisciplinarity wrong

A lot of young philosophers are being educated to become interdisciplinary philosophers. And many philosophers scoff at that. Journals that publish interdisciplinary work tend to be seen as less prestigious, as are papers with many co-authors (which is what often happens in interdisciplinary work). There is a sense in which interdisciplinarity can involve a “watering down” of philosophy, which philosophers don’t love.

However, even for all the negatives: the rise of the interdisciplinary philosopher is probably a good thing in the long run. The ecological, technological and political crises that we are facing cannot be solved with single disciplines. It is important that philosophers learn to talk with other disciplines. However, I think that the way in which we are doing it is often counterproductive.

Before I tell you why it’s counterproductive, let me explain how I came to think this. I have worked on an interdisciplinary project, in the role of an ethicist. I also took part in writing a project proposal, where I would have a part as an ethicist. Apart from that, I have been in close contact with various other projects where there was an ethics component. I have always felt a little dissatisfied with the place of philosophy in these projects.

What haven't you read, and why?

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

Lots of my philosophriends report that they're embarrassed about having not read X. Sometimes X is something that philosophers generally are supposed to have read. Sometimes it's just something that philosophers of one sort or another are supposed to have read.

I also feel this way. But rationally, I think we should all get over these feelings. So here's my proposal: let's have a confessional thread. It should be used exclusively for confession (no shaming!). Anyone who wants to can write in with philosophical work(s) they think they're supposed to have read but haven't. Hopefully this helps us all realize that we're ok.

This could be fun. I think it could be interesting to hear both what people haven't read, but also why. Is it simply that you haven't had enough time? Or is it some other reason, such as that you're just not interested in the topic or the literature surrounding it for some reason? Remember, no shaming other commenters! (Also, if you do share a reason why you haven't read something, please be sure to respect the Cocoon's supportive mission).

How to develop new research projects?

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

I'm an early career academic (in my first job post PhD). I've recently finished a couple of drafts based on PhD chapters and sent them to journals, and now I don't really know what to do next! This is the first time since my PhD began where I have had to effectively start from scratch. I'd love to know how academics navigate this - when faced with a blank page, how do you decide what to start working on next? What criteria do you use? My job is only temporary, so there is also the pressure of producing enough publications to make me a good candidate for jobs in a few years time.

These are great questions that, in my experience, many early-career people have. Indeed, I struggled with them earlier in my career myself! One reader submitted the following reply:

I have been a relatively successful researcher - for whatever that is worth. I would recommend that you extend your research into a neighboring topic, that is, investigate something near to what your thesis was on. Alternatively, go deeper into a topic that you have written on in your dissertation. You need to build on your strengths, and get some publications under your belt. And the best way to place them in good journals is to develop depth and build on your strengths. 

This seems like good advice, but I think there are other options too. In the past, I've shared some of the ways that I've found work for me in terms of developing new projects. For example, in this post, I shared the following three suggestions:

Norms for citing oneself?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader ('Narcissus (young and not established)') asks: Is it lame to cite yourself? One reader submitted the following response: 

The only reason to cite yourself is if it adds to the support of the argument. And please only cite published papers. The problem with self-citing is that is too often abused.

I think the first point here should go without saying, as that's just a general norm of citation: cite things relevant to the paper's argument. And, in general, I think the second point (about only citing published papers) is right, though I think there are scenarios in which citing unpublished work is fine (note: this is often done in the sciences, where preprints posted to the ArXiv are often cited prior to journal publication). Still, I'm curious what readers think: what norms do you think should govern self-citation?

Circulating unpublished work?

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

I have a rather silly question. Every once in a while, I hear that a paper has become quite popular prior to publication: the manuscript has been circulated and the work has been extensively discussed. I get that a paper becoming so popular requires a nice combination of luck and prestige in addition to a very nice paper. However, from the popular-prior-to-publication phenomenon I infer that there must be a tradition, in some philosophy circles at least, to circulate papers rather widely before publication. It just occurred to me that no one has ever sent me an unpublished work that is not the sender's own. So my question is, what are the norms for circulating papers where you work? Under what circumstances have others sent you a third person's unpublished papers? Under what circumstances would you be willing to have yours circulated, and how would you go about that?

These are excellent questions. I think the basic norms for circulating unpublished work are rooted in the author's consent. For example, suppose an author has posted the paper on their website, or on PhilPapers, or on SSRN, and so on. In all of these cases, absent some kind of disclaimer by their (such as the author writing 'Do not circulate or cite' on the paper or on their website), then I think it's fine to circulate the piece. The author has, after all, put it out there for circulation. This is very different, I think, than circulating an unpublished piece the author has sent you directly (e.g. by email). In this kind of case, I would think it wrong to circulate the unpublished work without asking. Sure, maybe the author should tell you when they send it to you, 'Please don't circulate this', but of course sometimes people can forget things like this--and the right thing to do in these cases, I think, is to play it safe out of respect for the author. For my part, I don't think I have ever once been sent an unpublished paper by anyone other than the author themselves--and my sense is that, when papers are widely circulated, they tend to be circulated either by the author or else shared widely from the author's website (where, again, the author has chosen to share them publicly).

Anyway, this is just my sense of the relevant norms, and they seem to me to be common sense. But what do you all think?

 

What next after finishing a major project?

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

I'm in the very lucky position that I have a permanent job in the UK on a teaching and research contract. Before this, I had a series of post-docs in Europe and the UK. I finished my PhD in 2012 and I recently published a monograph which rounded off the big research project that my PhD started.

I suppose what I'd like help with is: what next? I'm really struggling to develop and frame a 'second' mid-career research project. Because of the UK system, there is pressure to come up with projects that can result in research grants and books. I generate lots of ideas for projects, but none seem to stick. So how have other people found their second major project and brought it to fruition?

Great question, and I'm curious to hear how readers answer! Here are a few quick thoughts of my own.

Logic resources?

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

I've always struggled with logic. I've worked my way through a few logic texts now, and every time I forget most of it shortly after and then wonder, 'what was the point of that?'. I don't enjoy logic and I'm not mathematically inclined. But some areas of my field (metaphysics) are heavy on the logic and it would be nice to be able to keep up. Does anyone know of any resources (books, software programs, etc.) that can help, or just advice in general?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I was in your boat when I started my PhD. But I was forced to confront my distaste for formal logic because my program has a logic exam for 1st year PhD students. A few people from my cohort purchased 'Language, Proof, and Logic' by Barker-Plummer, Barwise, and Etchemendy. It comes with software that is useful for learning translations, truth tables, and derivations. The derivation software is especially useful because it tells you whenever you're taking an invalid step. I think you'd have to order a new copy to ensure that you get the software / get software that has an unused registration key. That said, it looks like it costs about $80 USD, so I'd certainly try to get a second opinion. I know it was useful for me, but perhaps more useful was the study group that I went through the book with, so the software may not have been indispensable.

Nice suggestion! Do any other readers have suggestions of their own?

Experiences and tips for co-authoring?

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

I was wondering whether this blog might be a good outlet for graduate students/faculty to detail and describe their experiences with co-authoring and collaborating on papers and symposia. What worked well? What didn’t? Who approached who with the idea to co-author/collaborate? How well did you all know each other before the project? Did you work on similar areas or different areas (and then pursue a project at the intersection of your differing areas)? Any general advice on this process?

These are great questions, and I look forward to hearing how readers answer. I have co-authored four times, and by and large I have found it to be a very positive experience. Here are some quick answers to the OP's questions:

What worked well?: I found co-authoring to be an excellent way to write papers in areas a bit outside of my areas of expertise. In half of the papers that I've co-authored, I had a paper idea that I thought promising, but I didn't have the technical background in the relevant area. Seeking out co-authors with expertise filled in those gaps, as it were. In the other two cases, I did have expertise in the area but had been corresponding with co-authors with related ideas. So, we teamed up!

What didn't?: For the most part, stuff went very well. In one case, I didn't know how to use the drafting software (LaTex) that my co-authors used, so I found that a bit difficult. In one other case, the paper I was working on with a co-author didn't really pan out. 

Who approached who, and how well did we know each other?: My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think in three out of the four cases I approached my eventual co-authors. Also, in three out of the four cases, the collaborations were with people who were formerly acquaintances--people who I had either met a few times or interacted with online, but otherwise didn't know very well. In the fourth case, I did know the person very well beforehand. 

Did you work on similar areas or different areas?: In two out of the four cases, I worked in similar areas as my co-author(s). In the other two cases, I worked in quite different areas from my co-author(s), but we teamed up because the project was at the intersection between our areas of focus. 

Any general advice on this process?: Here are a few tips...

A. Be up front about and negotiate clear timelines and expectations: For example, if you are on the job market or coming up for tenure, and you need to get the paper out and publish relatively quickly, my sense is that it is probably a good idea to let your co-authors know this, and see if they can commit to a mutually acceptable timeline for working on things. First, I think a prearranged 'deadline' for getting the paper done can be good. Second, I think it's a good idea to try to hammer out who will do what. In half of my co-authored papers, I served as the primary drafter, and my co-author served as a 'second author', revising (and adding in content) after the fact. In the other two cases, we split things up, with each author serving as the primary drafter for different parts of the paper. For what it is worth, my sense is that both can work well, but (for obvious reasons) I think it can be more efficient to designate one person as a 'first author' responsible for most of the drafting.  

B. Be understanding with co-authors: everyone has different commitments, especially during Covid (where they or family members can get sick, bogged down in teaching, etc.). Co-authoring may take longer than solo-authoring in this regard, but I think it can be worth it!

C. Be a responsible co-author: my spouse works in a STEM field where co-authoring is the norm, and sometimes one or more co-authors can be slow or non-responsive. Sometimes people just get bogged down, and for whatever reason aren't able to keep up with the prearranged schedule (if you had one). This is okay: it happens, and nobody is perfect! The key thing is just to be open and communicative, and to do your best to be a good co-author. Finally, on that note, sometimes a co-authored paper just doesn't quite come together, just as can happen with solo-authored papers. If you have doubts about the paper, just be honest with your co-author(s) about it. 

D. There's no single right way to co-author: my spouse regularly meets with co-authors via Zoom. Me? I've done all four of my co-authored pieces entirely over email, via email communication and communication in paper drafts (i.e. side comments). I prefer the latter because I think I work best on paper. But some people like to talk things through in person. Again, I think the best way forward is simply to find common ground.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of co-authoring, but these are just my tips and experiences. What are yours?

Best practices for research support at SLACs?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Josh writes:

I would be very grateful to get some hive-mind wisdom on the topic of research policy at SLACs. I'm at a small, mission-driven university that is doing its best to take research seriously. We often "punch above our weight," as it were, but we don't have much in the way of clear policy that might offer needed (in my view) structural incentives for faculty research.

I'm wondering about "best practices" when it comes to such structural incentives, e.g., policies on course and/or administrative release for grant-holders, grant applicants, course buyouts, non-grant-holding researchers, sabbatical policies, etc. I'd be especially grateful for ideas from those at SLACs, but definitely all ideas welcome.

Great questions! I'm curious to hear from readers who work at SLACs both on what their university's policies are like, as well as what people think 'best practices' are. I think my university does some nice things to support research for full-time faculty. Although I may be forgetting some things (I don't know whether grant-holders can get course releases), I do know that we have the following:

1. Annual merit raises: for full-time faculty, which depend on teaching, research, and service performance, though one can choose to have research weighted up to 40% in one's annual score.
2. Internal grants: which are competitive, but which any full-time faculty can apply for annually.
3. Post pre-tenure review course releases: a one-time, one course offload that tenure-track faculty get after successfully passing their 3rd-year pre-tenure review.
4. Sabbaticals: which tenured faculty can apply for after 6 years, either for one semester at full pay or for one year at half-pay.
5. Travel funding: which one must apply for prior to every conference, but can enable one to travel to from between 1-3 conferences per year.

If you work at a SLAC, what are your university's research-related policies and incentives? And what do you think 'best practices' are?

Tips for coming up with paper ideas?

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

I'm a PhD student and I guess it is time for me to produce and publish some papers but I'm still struggling to find paper ideas, even for the term papers! How do you come up with new ideas for paper? Do you have any heuristic for that?

For example, I have seen in a post here that Neil Mehta uses some heuristics: replacement, extension, unification etc. Do you have any suggestion so as to find new paper ideas? Do you think such heuristics really work?

Also, I guess people will suggest to write a lot and say that you will come up with ideas while writing. What do you write when you do not know what to write? Do you start by writing summeries of what you have read or by writing analyses of the well-known positions or arguments in the literature?

These are great questions, and I'm very curious to hear readers' answers! I had similar problems early in my career, both during grad school and my first few years post-PhD. Since then, I've found a few strategies that seem to help.

Preparing APA colloquium submissions

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

In light of the just-posted question regarding preparing for an APA symposium talk, I want to ask a similar question but about preparing for an APA colloquium submission. I am a graduate student who has some conference experiences, but those have all been at rather sub-field specific venues, and--more to the point of my question--these have tended to have much longer (up tp 8000 words) or shorter (up to 500 words) word limits. So I find APA's 3000 word limit a bit foreign to navigate. Since I take it philosophers these days rarely *really* write 3000-word papers, what are some of the tips to cut down a paper down to 3000 words *and* make sure it looks polished and well thought-out?

Good question. I don't submit colloquium papers to APA meetings very often and haven't had much success when I have. I have a very difficult time writing papers so short, and I don't particularly have a lot of patience when it comes to shortening longer papers (I basically just chop out entire sections, leaving what I take to be a vastly inferior paper, but that's word counts for you). Anyway, if anyone does have good strategies for doing this, I'd love to hear them too!

Directed reading courses & alternatives?

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

I am a graduate student interested in pursuing directed reading courses with faculty. I'm hoping to so because my department doesn't have people working in my areas of interest and I want to continue to train up before reapplying to PhD programs....

Taking for granted that these considerations might be different from department to department, I wonder how graduate students should conceive of directed reading courses, if anyone has suggestions for how to approach possible faculty supervisors, and other considerations related to these courses that students may not be aware of from the faculty perspective. E.g. should graduate students prepare a proposed syllabus before approaching a possible faculty supervisor? Would it be too much to ask people from other institutions to supervise such things?

Secondary to this, I wonder how these courses are considered by those reviewing the transcripts of PhD applicants--though this might not get much uptake here.

As two readers replied, asking people from other institutions to supervise a directed reading course is pretty much out of the question. They will receive no compensation for it, and asking people to do unpaid work is likely to come across as a bizarre ask. The way I see it, there's a much better alternative available, albeit one that takes some real initiative: organizing a self-directed reading group of your own. There is a long history of scholars doing this. To take just one case, Einstein famously organized the 'Olympia Academy' with a group of friends while working in the Swiss patent office. They were simply an informal reading group that read and discussed Hume, Mill, Spinoza, physics, philosophy of science, etc. In today's internet age, figuring out stuff to read in a new area is not very difficult. All you need to do, to begin, is check out resources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the entries of which standardly involve bibliographies that can serve as obvious reading lists. The trick, of course, is to get some other people--particularly, others with some philosophical skills and training--to do the reading group with you. Yet, if you're currently in a grad program (as the OP mentions), then this shouldn't be prohibitively difficult to do. Surely, there have to be a least a few other grads in the program who might have an interest in it. And who knows: maybe a faculty member or two might be interested in it too!

There are other possible ways to solicit interest in reading groups, particularly now that we are socially distanced: namely, online networking. On that note, let me offer just such a way right now: the comments section below! Is anyone out there interested in setting up a self-directed reading group online? If so, just post below the subject-matter you're interested in along with your name and contact information. Who knows? If there are enough of you out there willing to share your interests and information, maybe there will be enough overlap between some of you to get a few groups started.

Reading strategies for new subject matter?

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

I'm about to start my PhD [and]...I have recently changed my area of interest and wish to write my thesis on something completely new to me. At this point, what are your reading strategies on a new subject matter? How do you make your reading list? How do you decide what to read and what not? For example, should one start with 20th-century biggies first? Or can one start directly with the seminal papers or books in the last decades? Relatedly, how do you read a philosophical work? Do you try to understand every single sentence and idea? Do you sketch the arguments in detail for every paper? or do you read closely only after you have developed your paper ideas? etc.

Good questions! One reader replied:

[L]ots of variation here, depending on areas and the kind of projects you work on. If it is a new area, try to survey the central works. I wouldn't try to understand every single sentence and idea in most works. At first you want to read around and get a sense of the field. I'd also consult faculty members in the area you're interested in to find out what works they think are the most important. This can save you a lot of time.

I do read closely sometimes before I have a paper idea (if I'm interested enough in the book/paper) - reading carefully can lead to objections which can lead to papers. But once I have a paper idea I read very selectively - e.g., only the parts of books that are relevant to my particular paper. After working out a draft, I will then do a more careful literature search to see what's out there. I definitely wouldn't advise reading "everything under the sun" - even for your dissertation - unless you work in an area with very little literature.

Another reader replied:

Some philosophers like to get a general idea of what the author is getting at while others like to read the work like they’re trying to understand a complex mathematical problem and so every word is important. There are costs and benefits to both methods.

In other words, some philosophers value accuracy more than precision. And some value both equally. Accuracy is a given since truthfulness or correctness is required in inquiry. Precision is often regarded as an option most of the time in the realm of philosophical theory. I aim for both when reading and writing philosophy.

Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to arrive at the accuracy and precision of interpretation and understanding of the text depending on the author.

For example, Kant’s prose is mentally torturous and complicated and so it has led to a lot of varied and contradicting interpretations of his work....

Both of these readers make good points. I don't think there's a single best way to enter the literature for a new subject matter. My sense is that it depends a lot on one's purpose. For example, suppose you have some particular idea (say, about the nature of free will). In that case, the thing to probably do is to start with Google and Philpapers searches--and sometimes, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or even Wikipedia entries--to see what, if anything, has been written on that. Start there, with some recent or historical works that seem to be the closest to your own idea, and then go from there. Typically, of course, published papers you read will discuss and cite other relevant papers. So then go read those. This, in my experience, tends to be a pretty good method--at least, again, if your interest in the new subject matter is motivated by a particular idea.

Norms for initiating correspondence?

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

I'd love to hear people's views about the norms for initiating correspondence with other philosophers. It's a big aspect of the sociology of our profession. Yet I've never seen it discussed, and I have a sense that people have conflicting views about when it's appropriate.

Here is one special case I'd love feedback about. A prominent figure in my subfield once encouraged me (and other early career folks) to feel free to reach out and email polished drafts of my work to philosophers I am writing about in my research, and to do so prior to submitting this work to journals. Sometimes nothing will come of it (and that's fine), but the recipient might well enjoy reading and guiding new work related to their research. The reasons given were that doing so would (1) help early career people to develop relationships and, I think more importantly, (2) likely improve the quality of our drafts. I have heard from some grad students at elite programs that something like this is standard advice.

I have tried this, and sometimes received pushback from the other end. One senior philosopher whom I reach out to in this way told me they wished I hadn't done so, since now they would be unable to "blindly" referee my paper in the event that they are asked to do so. I see the force of this response.

So: I'd appreciate help figuring out the relevant norms. When is initiating correspondence like this a good idea? How should we balance peer-reviewing considerations against the benefits of open correspondence?

I think these are great questions! One reader responded:

As long as you're not sending your paper to lots of folks, I don't think there is anything wrong with sending your work to someone you discuss - but as you note, there can be a lot of variation in how or whether people respond.

I think it is especially likely to be a good strategy when the work you discuss isn't that of a super-prominent faculty member - most philosophers would be delighted to provide feedback to someone who actually discusses their work.

My own experience is that initiating correspondence tends to go best if you have some previous interaction with a person, such as meeting and talking with them at a conference. I also with agree with the above response that trying to initiate correspondence tends to work better if the person you're trying to initiate conversation with isn't super prominent (as my sense is that prominent people get so many unsolicited emails that they can get pretty perturbed by it). Finally, however else you do it, my sense is that tact matters a lot--though, of course, specifying exactly what is tactful here is difficult.

Anyway, I don't have much advice to offer beyond this--but I expect there are probably some readers out there who do. So, then: when do you think initiating correspondence is a good idea? How should one balance peer-review considerations against it? And what norms are there or tips do you have that might be helpful to share?  

Jorge Portilla's Fenomenología del relajo

Nick Riggle (University of San Diego) recently drew my attention to Mexican philosopher Jorge Portilla's work, Fenomenología del relajo, which has been translated into English with philosophical commentary by Carlos Alberto Sánchez (San José State University) in his 2012 book, The Suspension of Seriousness: On the Phenomenology of Jorge Portilla.

Although I have not had the opportunity to read Portilla's or Sánchez work yet (though I've now ordered the book), Riggle also drew my attention to a wonderful short commentary that I did have the chance to read: Francisco Gallegos' article, 'Seriousness, Irony, and Cultural Politics: A Defense of Jorge Portilla' (American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Hispanic/Latino Issues in Philosophy). 

I have to say that I found it an absolutely fascinating read that makes the case for how deep, original, and fruitful Portilla's thought is, and promised Nick that I would spread the word about it. So please do check it out!

Can good publications offset grad program rank?

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

On the topic of "tippy top" schools, how much can good publications offset coming from a lower ranked school on the job market? I'm set to defend in the fall and my department isn't particularly notable. I have however been fortunate enough to get two publications in top tier journals. Should I keep aiming to publish at high ranked journals or I am better off submitting to mid-level journals where I may be more likely to accumulate publications?

I'd be very curious to hear what readers think, particularly those who have been involved in hiring. For my part, I have to sadly confess--as I have before--that I am skeptical that publishing in the highest ranked journals is a very good job-market strategy for candidates coming out of lower-ranked programs. Allow me to explain why.

Open thread for creating Zoom writing-groups

Sam Duncan (Tidewater Community College) writes in:

Since using Zoom so much recently I've been thinking more and more about the possibility of trying to put together some kind of Zoom group with other philosophers to read and give comments on one another's papers....I'm in a super small department and really only have one or two people I might ask for feedback on my own work so there's a self-interest component here. But more than that I thought it might be a good way to build more of a community and read some other people's work. Honestly, at the moment I don't really have anything I'm working on that's too far along so I'm more interested in reading other people's work at the moment. I thought it might make sense to make these deliberately broad and eclectic too. That might do something to get people in sub-disciplines talking to each other and it would be a real help with people trying to craft papers to get past the first round at generalist journals. Would you be willing to put a call out for something like this on the Cocoon? I'm willing to organize a group and use my college's Zoom account to host, though I'm thinking that if it got much larger than five or six people it might get unwieldy so depending on the response it might make sense to do more than one.  Anyway just a thought I've been having.

I think this is a wonderful idea. I checked with Sam, and he's happy to have anyone interested in joining such a group email him (sld24688@email.vccs.edu). However, given that as he notes such a group could balloon to an unwieldy size, we thought it could be cool to also open up this thread for readers to try to create Zoom groups of their own as well. So please, if you're interested in creating or joining a Zoom group to trade papers (or even just do a reading group), feel free to comment below with any relevant details (such as your area of focus, contact info, etc.). You can also feel free to talk back and forth in the comments section as well to arrange things!

Co-author solicitation thread

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

Any philosopher here interested in co-authoring papers in political philosophy? Could we have a fixed thread in which people interested in this kind of opportunity could 'advertise' their work in progress or projects?

Co-author responded:

I would discourage people from just collaborating with scholars they have not had contact with before. Co-authoring is a very intimate relationship. Even though I have published with people I have never met in person, I established a relationship of sorts - building trust with them - before we embarked on a collaborative project.

I'm not sure why 'co-author' thinks the fact that co-authoring involves a relationship of trust is a reason not to run a thread like this. The way I see it, there are already too many barriers to co-authoring in philosophy: principally, the barrier that not that many people seem to do it, but also the barrier that a lot of people may not be in a very good position to develop the kinds of pre-existing relationships that 'co-author' alludes to here. For example, people who work in very small, non-prestigious departments may have difficulties networking or finding co-authors. So, I see no clear reason not to run a thread of the sort Charles requested. It may not work work very well (who knows!), but no one will ever know if we don't try. Personally, I've sometimes had paper ideas that I thought might be good ones, which I thought a co-author might be able to help with, but which I gave up on because I didn't know anyone who I thought might be good to approach as a co-author. This sort of thing seems to me unfortunate, and probably a situation that others face. So, I say, why not give a thread like the one Charles asked for a go? It might give people an opportunity to seek out and create the kinds of productive relationships 'co-author' mentioned.

In any case, I hereby open this thread for individuals interested in co-authoring to put feelers out. Please feel free to broadly describe your area of focus or the kind of philosophical issue you're working on, and whatever information about yourself you think may be helpful. I would caution commenters against being too open with what you're working on, as you never know whether there may be bad actors out there looking to poach others' ideas. However, if you're just vague enough, perhaps a thread like this may be helpful!

Writing advice to those new to publishing?

A reader writes in:

I'm new to the publishing side of the profession. I do have projects I'm working on. What I can tell I haven't developed is a sense of a reliable writing process.  

Do you (or other philosophers) get an idea and generally just start drafting the idea right away? Or do you spend time reading relevant litt first?

My worries are that I furiously write two pages worth of notes to get an idea down just to go read the literature to find out I've either been scooped (someone's already worked on that) or that it's actually just a terrible idea, and it feels like wasted time (and inspiration) to have banged out even the 2-3 pages of notes. So my temptation is to read. But then the reading feels unending. When did I read enough to feel justified that I can start writing this up?  

My advisor in grad school was and is a prolific writer. So I can't imagine that [they're] poring over a lot of articles before [they] just start throwing ideas on the page. But I'm also guessing [they're] not representative either since [their] output volume is a lot higher than anyone else in my old department. I'm trying to get a sense of reasonable expectations (averages maybe?) about how the process should go.

This is a great query, and I'm curious to hear what other readers think. However, here are some of my own quick reactions.

Self-referencing and anonymized review

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

There's about six published analyses of concept X, one of them by me. I want to write a paper saying something like the following: "Everyone agrees that Y is a case of X. But all these conceptual analyses except mine fail to capture that fact. So mine's the best."

(There's more to the paper than this, but this is the part that raises some problems for me).

My question is, what would it look like to remove identifying references from such a paper? Should I cite my paper on the concept of X, but call it [Removed for anonymous review], or should I refer to myself in the third person?

The former is what I feel pulled to do, since that's what I normally do. But I guess why I'm confused is that in all my other cases of self-citation, the citation was pretty offhand and I said so little about the paper that it would be very difficult to know which paper I was actually talking about. But that won't be the case here, and there would be pages and pages of, "As [Redacted] has argued...", "[Redacted]'s view would predict that ...", and so on.

This is a great query. As a lot of my own research builds on previous things I've published, this is an issue that I struggled with for a long while, and I found out the hard way the best way to go about it. In brief, the general consensus on this seems to be: don't use '[Redacted]'; instead, cite yourself in the third-person. I say this is the general consensus for two reasons: 

1. I've been a part of several social media threads where this was the dominant answer.
2. I was called out by referees, and seemingly had papers rejected, for using the '[redacted]' approach.

Why do people oppose the latter approach? Two pretty good reasons were given: (A) the '[redacted]' approach openly signals that the author of the paper has already published, conveying to a reviewer that they may already be a recognized figure in the field, and (B) it can be pretty easy to determine who the author is likely to be, especially if (as is the case in the OP) the author is the sole person who defended a particular account, or otherwise one of few authors who has. Both (A) and (B) seem problematic, as they can induce reviewer biases that anonymized review is designed to preclude or mitigate. In contrast, citing yourself in the third-person leaves it a mystery whether you are the person who defended the view in question. Sure, the reviewer might wonder whether you are them--but there's no way for them to really know, whereas '[redacted]' is a clear signal that indeed you are the person who published the previous work.

Anyway, this is my take. What do you all think, particularly those of you who serve as journal reviewers or editors?

Blogging in times of COVID-19

By Gottfried Schweiger (University of Salzburg)

At the moment most of us are sitting at home and are observers of events that are radically changing our lives and for which the outcome is open. The universities are closed and what remains for philosophers is online teaching, writing papers and books. As long as there are no childcare obligations that make all professional activities much more difficult and tedious, if not completely impossible, one might think that the COVID 19 pandemic does not change much for philosophers. Yes, there are no more conferences and jetting from one talk to another is no longer possible. Also the change to online teaching is challenging, but is possible in philosophy in principle, unlike laboratory-based teaching. My impression from my own experience and conversations with colleagues is that productivity is decreasing. On the one hand it is often not so quiet at home, on the other hand the overall situation is stressful, exhausting, even frightening for some. The COVID-19 isolation at home is not a nice writing retreat for most people. This can become a problem especially for early-career colleagues who depend on publications for job applications.

But since we are all thinking about the current situation and what is probably still to come, it is a chance for philosophy and especially for philosophical blogging. Many philosophical questions arise: Allocation of scarce resources, the weighing of different goods (health vs. economic losses), the legitimation of far-reaching state measures and surveillance. At least three debates are now needed: First, a public debate in which all sciences with their different expertise should participate. Secondly, internal debates within the discipline, including a debate in philosophy on the above questions. Thirdly, a debate on the role of philosophy in interdisciplinary and public debate and what role philosophy can play for the public right now. The COVID-19 pandemic has an existential dimension, which is also reflected in all kinds of practical advice on how to deal with it and reflections on the changes in our everyday lives. Questions about the meaning of life and one's own vulnerability now arise for many. This should also be a field for philosophy.

Dealing with post-publication anxiety

An early-career reader writes in:

I’ve been wondering how one deals with post-publication anxiety. After my first publication, I felt a great deal of anxiety and dread: I couldn’t bear looking at my paper (knowing all the changes I wish I would have made) and it was easy for me to think that my paper was just bad, that it somehow slipped through the cracks of the peer-review process. I feared the paper would eventually get read and word would spread about how lame the paper was and that my career would tank before it even got started. (To be sure, this certainly has happened to people, so why couldn’t it happen to me?!)

 

Do most people feel this way after publishing for the first time? Do people still feel this way after their nth-publication? How do you deal with it? What do you tell yourself?

 

This is a great query, and I'm very curious to hear how readers answer!

 

I have a bunch of thoughts about this, as I have particular attitudes (indeed, a bit of a philosophy) about publishing. I don't pretend that my philosophy here is the right or best one (even in my own case). I simply mean to report how I approach things and why (okay, to be fair, I do offer advice below, but I am well aware it may not be right!).

Tips for academics with children?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'Don't regret my kids but this is hard' writes:

I'm a mom of young kids on the TT who is seriously struggling, particularly with producing research that is up to par while coping with time, energy, mental fitness, sleep, health, and money issues caused by pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting. Any and all advice is welcome—financial, related to time management, daycare, or otherwise. Moms—or dads—how did you make it through? Is this possible?

These are really important questions for obvious reasons, so I hope readers out there with children chime in with their perspective and/or tips! Unfortunately, I must confess that I cannot add much here. Me and my spouse (who is also an academic) have put off having children for years for these very reasons. Given our workloads, neither of us can quite fathom how we could do everything we need to do with children. At the same time, I have colleagues with children who have pulled it off somehow, so I have some grounds for believing it's possible (albeit very difficult, or so I've heard). So, then, anyone else out there have any insight that might help "Don't regret" and other academics struggling with similar issues?

Who reads all that?

A reader writes in:

Has the Cocoon ever run a post asking philosophers to weigh-in on how many of the works in their impressively lengthy reference list they've actually read, start to finish? Thought maybe it'd be good for some of us to hear. 

As a graduate student searching for that first journal pub I often find having to show that you know the right stuff by referencing it pretty paralyzing, because there is so much stuff. And it always seems to me that you can't just reference it, but you should show you know it, to some extent. But then I find myself doubting that this person whose paper I am reading who cites 48 articles has really read them all. And yet, they weren't sniffed out as a fraud. So, what gives? Of course this is related to an issue that's been discussed here when it comes to writing. Namely, do not feel like you have to read everything, and certainly do not read too much first, since that brings on intellectual paralysis. But that's not really what I'm speaking to. Eventually, you do have to get the relevant literature in there. And so the question is, who among us is doing all that reading, and are we fools if we actually only cite what we've read front to back?

Good question, and I'm curious to hear how everyone answers. My own answer, in brief, is that I give things I cite the level of attention they require for the purposes they play in whatever project I include them in. In some cases, this requires very close multiple readings. For example, if I am going to criticize a particular position or author, then of course I need to read their work very carefully and do my best to get all of the details right. Other times, however, I may simply need to skim an entire reading. A case where this occurs might be one where I want to make sure I am not simply giving the same argument as someone else (I might not need to read the entire paper super carefully in order to figure that much out, and hence cite and discuss relevant differences in a footnote). Finally, in some cases, I may only need to read some (but not all) of a paper in order to know enough about the paper to be comfortable citing it. This is sometimes the case for 'literature review' sections of a paper, where I need to recognize the kinds of positions that have been defended by others in the literature. In some cases like these--where the point of citing the relevant sources is to simply 'set the scene' for the paper at hand--one needn't read the entire work to know enough about it to cite it as representing a particular position in the literature (as an example: I doubt very many people have read all of both volumes of Parfit's On What Matters--but, for all that, many of his most distinctive positions are pretty well-known by now).

Although I suspect there may be a few sticklers out there who think that every source one cites should be given close, careful, and complete readings, I'd be surprised if something like this isn't how most people do things. As with most things, there are tradeoffs one has to choose between. If, on the one hand, one insists upon reading from beginning to end every source one cites, then (A) it could be hard to ever get any writing done, or alternatively (B) one may be forced by time constraints to read and cite fewer things (leading, potentially, to under-citation: a common scholarly problem, in my experience). If, on the other hand, one decides how much to dive into readings before citing them, then it is always possible that one will make mistakes in representing the works cited (another problem). The reality, I suspect, is that most of us are probably continually torn between both of these options, reading as much as we can (as completely as we can) relative to the time and other professional constraints we face--and that the kinds of problems each approach results in are best avoided by a division of labor (authors doing their best, outside readers and journal referees calling out errors, etc.) 

But these are just my thoughts. What do the rest of you do and/or think?

Mehta's teaching (and research) resources

Neil Mehta (Yale-NUS) writes in:

I've recently put together a revised set of handouts for teaching philosophy, including handouts on understanding evidence, using various argument forms, developing objections, and being precise. I wonder if you'd be willing to post a link to this on Phil. Cocoon:

http://www.profneilmehta.com/resources.html

Mehta also has a helpful writing guide for professional philosophers on the page, as well. Many thanks to Neil for drawing my attention to them. I hope some readers find them helpful!

Are translations valued?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Theo writes:

Could we have a thread about publishing translations of philosophical texts? Is this kind of work recognized by the profession? Or should I rather publish "original" work?

'b' replied:

If you have not yet got a TT job, I would not recommend translations. But if you do have a TT job, and you are at the right sort of place, they will count for something. Clearly with a good academic commentary published along side a translation, you can make a worthy contribution.

This sounds right to me. My sense is that job-candidates in particular (and TT but untenured faculty to a lesser extent) should primarily focus on publishing original work, staying away from things like translations or editing books. While these things are valuable, my sense is that original research counts far more for securing tenure-track employment and tenure than editing books or translations.

But this is just my sense. What is yours? 

Readings in Classical Korean Philosophy?

Sergio Gallegos (John Jay College) writes in:

I am writing briefly to ask for some assistance that you or some of the Cocoon's readers might be able hopefully to provide: a brilliant undergraduate student of mine has requested to an independent study with for next semester, and she would like to do research on classic Korean philosophy (she is particularly interested in Neo-Confucian authors of the Joseon period). Since this a little beyond my area of expertise, I am writing to please request some assistance in getting some suggestions in terms of authors, major works and, hopefully, some secondary literature in English too.

Great query - I've just begun learning a little about the history of Korean philosophy myself, and think it would be very beneficial (both to Sergio and his student, but also to the Cocoon's readers!) to solicit some good sources! Anyone with background in Korean philosophy have any helpful suggestions?

Timmerman's philosophy-writing advice

Travis Timmerman (Seton Hall) shared the following helpful writing advice on facebook recently, and consented to me sharing it  for discussion here. Timmerman's original post is public, and he wanted me to note that he accepted some additions and qualifications. 

I am supervising an undergraduate student's thesis and this student is very advanced philosophically and a truly excellent writer. I am giving him advice on his thesis, and on how to write for publication. He started to fall into the trap of trying to read literally everything in the literature before he put a pen to paper (so to speak).

Here is my first stab at step-by-step advice about how to approach writing a paper. Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome! I am curious to see what my philosophy friends think, should you wish to share.

-------------------------------------------------------

Don't try to read everything in an area of philosophy before you start writing. If you do that, you will never start writing, or you will significantly and unnecessarily delay your writing. Rather, you should do some variation of the following that you find works best for you.

(1) Jot down your initial ideas and save them.

(2) Start combing through the literature, working from, or creating, a bibliography. (See if there is a bibliography in PhilPapers.)

(3) Look at the papers and abstracts to make sure your exact idea hasn't already been defended in the literature. If your exact idea has, you've been scooped. Move on to another idea, or something new related to this idea, or another project entirely. If not, continue to step (4).

(4) Read what seem to be the seminal articles in the literature.

(5) Read the articles that seem most relevant to the specific question you are focusing on, and not everything in the subfield.

(6) With (1) and your knowledge of the literature, write an outline.

(7) Write a draft of the paper.

(8) With a complete, semi-polished draft, see if you can get a few philosophers who are experts in the literature to read it, and a philosopher or two who knows nothing about the literature to read it.

Ask the expert(s) to give you critical comments, particularly ones that may highlight any misunderstanding of the positions discussed, potential oversights of articles that need to be cited, and the viability of your argument.

Ask the non-expert to give you comments, particularly ones that may highlight a lack of clarity in your argument, discussion of the positions, and so on. Without having read any of the literature themselves, they should be able to read your paper and understand literally every sentence in it. That's the ideal anyway.

(9) Revise in light of their good comments.

Follow something like steps (1)-(9), and repeat.

I generally think this is very good advice. But I'm curious whether everyone agrees with it, and whether people have alternative strategies to share. Me? Like some other people on Timmerman's facebook thread, I've never written a paper (or book) outline in my life! I just write, working things out on paper. I also often go straight from Timmerman's step 1 (having an idea) to step 3 (checking on philpapers and elsewhere to see whether anyone has defended the idea in print), as I don't see any reason to waste time putting together a bibliography if I've already been scooped! Then, if nothing like the view I want to defend has been defended, I may read just a couple of seminal articles (step 4) before proceeding straight to step 7 (drafting the paper). Indeed, oftentimes I'll only give a good variety of other potentially relevant articles in the literature a read (step 5) after writing a full draft, so that I can cite the literature well and address alternative views, objections, and so on. Let me explain why.

I don't remember exactly where I came across it, but a long time ago I heard a senior member of the profession say that immersing oneself in a literature before developing your own ideas in detail can be stultifying, encouraging you to see an entire philosophical problem as others have seen it, whereas it can be really important to try to 'see the problem anew.' Ever since hearing this, I've always thought there is something important to it. First, earlier in my career (i.e. in grad school), I often felt 'boxed in' by the contours of how problems were already understood in a given literature--as though I had to begin with the problem where others had already left off (which I think in retrospect sometimes led me to preemptively reject lines of argument that I now consider to be good ones). Second, sometimes when I dive deeply into a given literature even now, I find myself surprised by the contours of the debate, disagreeing with the dominant dialectic.

Consequently, I'm often inclined to develop ideas and write up rough drafts of things before Timmerman's step 5 (reading relevant articles in the literature). To clarify, I don't mean to say here that one should avoid what other people have written. The issue for me rather is when to dive into 'relevant articles' in the literature. I sometimes do this as Step 5, but I think just as often I do it between steps 7 and 8 (i.e. after writing a full rough draft but before polishing it into something I would want to send to anyone), the aim again being to "get outside of the literature" and think about a philosophical problem, developing an argument in detail before even seeing what other people have had to say about it. Finally, I'll be honest here in saying that this approach can be a 'double-edged sword.' In particular, it can result in "wasted time", as when you spend a lot of time developing something only to later come to the conclusion (after drafting it up and reading the literature) that the argument has problems one didn't foresee. Nevertheless, compared to how 'boxed in' I often felt as a graduate student, I've often found the method to be helpful.

Anyway, I'm curious whether other people do this too, and for similar reasons. I'm also curious whether other people deviate from Timmerman's advice in ways they find helpful, and if so, why!

Tips for editing books

In our September "how can we help you?" thread, Anonymous writes:

I’d love a post for both those editing books, special issues of journals, etc. and for those who get asked to contribute about what kind of information should be communicated to contributors and/or what questions contributors should get answered before they commit. I’ve seen wildly different levels of information communicated. Some initial thoughts of things that should be communicated before commitment: word count, what kind of review process will happen (I.e. will it be peer reviewed? Will the editor just look at it? Does it need to be blinded? If it is for a journal special issue, is the review process the same as the standard review process?), how much editorial advice one should expect to get, what the expected publication date is (though of course take this with a major grain of salt), an abstract or infgormation about the theme (as opposed to e.g. just a title for the collection), what kinds of subfields contributors will be drawn from, etc.

I've never edited a book myself, but I have contributed to edited volumes as an author and am curious what people think. What are authors owed in terms of up-front communication? One thing that I think may be relevant is an expected timeframe for publication. I've heard a few horror stories about people who contributed papers to volumes only to be left hanging for many years without any clear picture of if or when the volume would actually come out. Another thing I think may be relevant is whether the volume will be reviewed after publication. I know of cases of edited volumes that have come out (in some cases we very good presses) that, for one reason or another, never received a single review, either in a journal, NDPR, etc. I can imagine it being very frustrating to put hard work into a piece, only to see the book get no attention at all. How much control / responsibility do volume editors have for this? I don't know - but it does seem to me to be something that authors should be informed about heading in (if possible, of course).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? What should a good book editor communicate to contributors, and at what stage?

Anonymizing when self-citing

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, anon postdoc writes:

I am working on a paper that relies in a couple of paragraph on an argument from a previous paper, already published. I was wondering how best to do this in a way that complies with blind-review. Some possibilities I am considering:

a. Cite myself as though it were another person.

b. Give a footnote and write '[deleted for blind review]' where the reference would go. (However, I have been told before, when doing this, that it is not sufficiently compliant with blind-review. Wish that my views were that famous!)

c. Appeal to some other argument in the literature that raises a similar concern, and give that prominence instead of my view. Then change this if the article gets accepted. (This could be used in combination of a or b).

This is a great query. I struggled with this very issue for a long time because I didn't know what the norms are. After seeing this discussed on social media, my sense is that the dominant norm is (a): citing yourself in the third-person, as though you are not the author. I am skeptical about whether this actually tends to work in terms of successfully anonymizing a piece--as my sense is that referees can probably still infer it's probably you a good proportion of the time (which I suspect may advantage prestigious, well-known authors and disadvantage lesser-known, less prestigious authors)--but still, my sense is that (a) is the norm.