A "Guide" for Graduate Students about Publishing (Leiter)
There is some interesting and thoughtful advice here in this short essay by Thom Brooks, a political philosopher at the University of Newcastle. I'm not sure I agree with all of this (e.g., I don't think American grad students, at least, are well-advised to spend time writing book reviews--but the situation may be different in the UK), but it's worth a read. I invite comments from readers on the general topic of publishing as a graduate student. As usual, comments may take awhile to appear, so please only post once.
According to Brooks, a staple in one's submission to a journal is a death sentence. This can't possibly be true, can it? At least... I *hope* it isn't.
In general, though, I think this summarizes a lot of good info that grad students need.
Posted by: Eugene Marshall | February 02, 2006 at 06:13 PM
I think his advice about book reviews is fine - in that it is a good first step to publishing which builds confidence. Moreover, as a pg student, it forces you to engage seriously with relevant works and also allows you in some cases to acquire books gratis!
The advice to publish is invaluable! I really wish that I had received this advice earlier in my pg career - I have received it many times over the last six months or so, but really I've been too preoccupied in this time finishing my thesis to be preparing things for publication.
Posted by: mark | February 02, 2006 at 07:02 PM
Experience has taught me that publishing papers is massively important for those trying to enter the profession, at least in the UK. I spent the period after getting my PhD teaching and bookifying the thesis, and, in retrospect, this was a schoolboy error that I'm only now beginning to put right. However impressive a book might be in the longer term, someone who's just starting up could do without the white paper on his CV. Much better, from an employment point of view, to have taught and produced a string of papers, even if they were only short and in smaller journals. Those who are at the end of a PhD at the moment and are considering bookification might do well to consider whether breaking the thesis up into a handful of papers would be a better option. It won't always be, but, for some, it might.
I'd agree with the idea that getting reviews published while still a student is a good idea - it probably doesn't count for much "officially", but it does show willing, and that could be an important clincher in interview situations.
Posted by: Iain | February 03, 2006 at 05:26 AM
To: Faculty in a position to play a role in hiring decisions and/or the recently hired
From: Grad student (in a top program) worried about his/her chances on the market next year
Question: For the purposes of the US market (given the RAE, etc., matters are rather different in the UK), how important is it that a first-time applicant has published one or more articles/reviews? Is it, for instance, more important than having the doctorate in hand at the time of applying? (This seems to be the choice many first-time applicants face: to finish the dissertation or to work up material for publication.)
Posted by: Inquiring mind wants to know ... | February 03, 2006 at 08:01 AM
First of all, I am delighted by the positive response to my short article on publishing. There isn't much in terms of practical advice out there and I hope my piece will be helpful. I have just three short comments to add:
(1) Staples are not the end of a submission, but they should never accompany one. Use paperclips.
(2) My advice on book reviews is that they can serve as a useful first step on the road to publishing: no one is hired because s/he has written book reviews (at least as far as I am aware of). Articles are the prize, but don't pop into existence on their own. I advise that students starting their graduate careers write a book review of two and gain quick experience on publishing more generally. Indeed, I began writing a few reviews when I was a M.A. student and I think it has helped me afterwards.
(3) For what it's worth, I would say publications are far more important than having a Ph.D. in the UK for hiring purposes. I was hired about six months or so before finishing my Ph.D., being lucky enough to have some publications in hand already and "RAE" safe. I suspect the answer in the US is "it depends": it depends on which programme you're in, your supervisory committee, etc. Publications (in the right places) may serve as a form of quality assurance that can boost the profiles of those in lower profile arrangements and perhaps be expected forthose in higher profile places.
Posted by: Thom Brooks | February 03, 2006 at 09:47 AM
I have to say that staples vs. paper clips is an issue that truly doesn't matter! When I referee papers, I prefer to get manuscripts that are stapled, since it's easier for me not to lose pages. But it really doesn't make any difference.
Posted by: Brian Leiter | February 03, 2006 at 09:51 AM
While this article was written for Grad students and post-docs, I'm wondering what advice you might give to undergrads. For example, to what extent should an undergraduate student be worried about publication? I find myself eager to begin publishing, but am wondering whether or not I ought to hold off or at least stick to the growing number of undergraduate philosophy journals.
Let me pose my worries in three questions:
(1) What effect will prior publication help my grad school applications?
(2) Should I be worried about giving away copyrights to lesser journals? (ie should I hold off on submitting a paper to an undergrad journal in hopes of eventually publishing it in a more prestigious journal?)
(3) Are professors likely to encounter and/or take seriously the work of an undergrad?
Thanks
Posted by: Sam | February 03, 2006 at 01:29 PM
I wish I had been urged to publish papers while in graduate school. (I graduated from The University of Chicago in 2002.) I struggled on the job market without them. Now that I have been on the side of a hiring committee at Syracuse University, I can say without hesitation that (accepted) publications in well regarded journals can make a massive difference in order to be noticed, especially in this era of insanely inflated letters of recommendation. They do form another layer of quality control even if we all know very bad journal articles. (Publications also can become a useful argument to move a candidate from a maybe list to a 'let's interview' list.) Book reviews are obviously not as helpful in this regard, but on the margin they can make a difference. (They can become intellectual springboard for future efforts at publication, and be part of a narrative that emphasizes engagement with debates in the discipline.) I am more puzzled by the trend to mention the name of a journal where a paper is under review.
Posted by: Eric Schliesser | February 03, 2006 at 01:32 PM
I found this to be an excellent piece--thanks, Thom! And if anyone reading this would like to write a book review for the *Journal of Value Inquiry*, please don't hesitate to email me!
Like Eric, I too am puzzled by the trend towards mentioning on your CV where your papers are under review, especially since this strikes me as risking the blindness of the review procedure (assuming that this is the journal's practice). Moreover, what good can it do to mention your current non-association with certain journals?
Posted by: James Stacey Taylor | February 03, 2006 at 07:39 PM
In reply to Sam:
(1) Publications would really boost your applications to grad school, distinguishing you above the fray. The problem is that while some grad students are able to publish, only a very small handful of undergrads have done so. I would think it a risky strategy to be avoided as your chances of rejection (and loss of confidence) too great. Try going for a book review in a second tier journal first and work up from there: you have plenty of time. Whether or not your application is successful will depend on any number of factors *other than* publication records: the expectation will be that people are reading and have great ideas, not yet ready for publishing.
(2) I wouldn't worry about copyrights.
(3) Sure---if you publish in a great place, everyone may take you more seriously. I think (as an undergrad) you're best spending your time not worrying about publishing. That said, there are several undergrad philosophy journals out there that might be worth thinking about--or go for the postgraduate Philosophical Writings which would be more impressive.
Posted by: Thom Brooks | February 04, 2006 at 05:31 AM
I am glad that Eric and James have brought up this issue of mentioning the name of the journal at which one's paper is under review....for a while now I have wished I had a blog just so I could complain about that. It doesn't seem to make any sense. The only reasons I think someone could have to mention the name of the journal is to imply that one might soon have a publication in it, or that one is submitting to journals of quality rather than crappy journals. But surely neither of these is a good reason. Good journals have 5 or 10 percent acceptance rates, so having a paper under review at a good journal doesn't mean one is likely to soon have a publication in that journal. And the fact one sends one's work to Phil Review rather than the Ottawa Review or whatever could just mean one is deluded about the quality of one's work. Can anyone think of a better reason that I have overlooked?
On a similar note, there seems to be a trend toward listing papers under review under the Publications section of one's CV, as if people reading one's CV will fail to notice that it is not a publication.
Finally, on the issue of confidentiality: I list the name of papers under review on my cv, partly because it gives some indication of the topic, and partly because, I suppose, it seems to be the thing that's done. But I've been considering changing this practice, for purposes of preserving blind review, given that my cv is online. I thought I might say something like this:
"Under Review: ___________________________ (a paper in the metaphysics of mind, arguing xyz", where xyz is precise enough to give readers of my cv an indication of my interests but not specific enough to jeopardize the blind review process).
I am interested in knowing whether anyone has thoughts on this. (Brian, I hope this doesn't co-opt the thread.)
Posted by: Nick | February 04, 2006 at 07:57 AM
I cannot believe some of the people in this dialogue are even talking about publishing as an undergraduate! It reminds me of how "testing" and the pressures to compete are now reaching even first grade in schools is America.
I think this is all insane and distracting. More and more the top 10 rules for graduate students to survive and excel have nothing to do with the top 10 rules for them to learn and grow. My advice to students? play the game, win, but avoid corruption.
Posted by: Prof. Gregory Pappas | February 04, 2006 at 08:55 AM
(1) Thom Brook's essay is very helpful. But students should also be cautioned not to publish too much too early. If they publish lousy work, it will haunt them for the rest of their career. Even good work is going to count in their favor only if it's published in the right places. Ideally, if a piece is good, it should be published, and it shouldn’t matter where. But things are not so simple. For readers don't have the resources to determine the quality of every article. Hence, they often decide what to read and cite based on where it is published, especially when the name of the author is otherwise unknown.
Students should be aware that where they publish is at least as important as whether they do, especially if they aspire to a job in a research institution. In my experience, search committee members pay a lot of attention to journal (and press) names. Articles in good journals are big plusses and articles in decent journals are plusses, but articles in journals that are not considered “good enough” are minuses. Students should be aware of this when deciding where to submit.
Unfortunately, the solution is not to inundate J. Phil. and Phil. Review with submissions. Most of those will be rejected, probably without an explanation. Students need to search for journals that are right for their work.
(2) About listing one’s submissions under review with the name of the journal. I find it mildly irritating: do they really think I am not going to notice that it says “under review”? Don’t they realize that in a few months, everyone will be in a position to infer that their paper was rejected (with very few exceptions)? Mostly, I think this phenomenon is due to naïveté, so I don’t give it much weight. After all, I wouldn’t want my naïveté to count against me.
Posted by: Gualtiero Piccinini | February 04, 2006 at 09:36 AM
A few thoughts on some of the above:
Staples may be bad when sending papers to journals for review, but I think that they are preferable for conference papers. Otherwise, there is a too much of a risk of your papers getting out of order. Also, from time to time one finds oneself without a podium. Good luck with your unstapled papers then!
It never occurred to me that revealing the journal where a submission has been sent could potentially violated the blindness of a review process. That's something worth thinking about. I had always assumed that the journal was mentioned as a form of evidence. You're not just saying "oh, I sent my manuscript.... somewhere" -- you are making a claim that could, at least in principle, be verified.
I think it's good advice to start with book reviews, both as a way of gaining confidence and of getting lines on one's CV. But I think they have a limited return, i.e., graduate students should not try to amass a pile of book reviews. Rather, after doing one or two, move on to conference papers, as Thom Brooks suggests.
Speaking of conferences, the advice not to be published in conference proceedings varies from field to field. The conference proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, for example, are published in the journal Philosophy of Science. Now that's a nice "two for one"!
Posted by: Roberta Millstein | February 04, 2006 at 02:56 PM
Sorry, just a couple more things about listing "under review" articles on the CV.
Certainly these should not be listed under "publications;" if the person reading the CV notices (as they probably will), then it will look as though the writer of the CV was intending to deceive. However, I do think that search committees like to see not only published work, but evidence of work in progress and work that is completed and in the pipeline. To satisfy this, one can have separate sections for "Under review" and "Works in progress" on the CV.
Posted by: Roberta Millstein | February 04, 2006 at 03:01 PM
I am not a philosopher (I'm a sociologist), but Brook's article strikes me as not the best advice. Sure, book reviews and commentaries can be a valuable writing exercise and they do constitute valuable scholarly communication. I would also cede that they might help build confidence and provide an opportunity to practice academic writing. But as many others have pointed out, articles (or book contracts in some disciplines) are the gold standard.
Think about it: You are hiring a future faculty member. You want to know if someone will be productive and tenurable in 5-7 years. What's a better signal of ability to publish original research?
Book review. Not even close. In the end, it's just a comment on someone else's work.
Commentary. Maybe, but only if it appears in a top journal or is unusally good.
Dissertation in progress. If you have a couple of kick-ass chapters, this will impress people.
Complete dissertation. Obviously a huge bonus, but maybe you just had an easy advisor.
Articles. Bingo! These are hard to publish so they mean a great deal. Unless it's obviously bad or in a third tier journal, most people will respect them.
Therefore, by far, you should concentrate most effort into writing articles. Heck, in my program, many graduate students are advised to get an article or two done before you complete your dissertation. Think about it: everybody will have a dissertation in progress, few will have an article. It separates you from the rest.
So how to get an article published? A lot of people are more eloquent but here it goes:
1. Write a paper. Don't worry if it sucks. Just write something.
2. Hit "print."
3. Buy some stamps, put the paper in an envelope, and send it to a journal.
4. Wait. Write another paper while you wait.
You will most likely get rejected. It's ok. It happens to everyone. Even Einstein wrote occasional clunkers. Just read the referee reports and then be honest with yourself. Some criticisms will be off the mark, but you can ususally extract some good advice from even the meanest reviewer.
Go back, fix the sucky parts and keep what you think is good. Then repeat. Most papers will be publishable somewhere with enough work and you'll eventually write some good stuff.
And don't worry about staples and stuff like that. Just use normal paper (US or European), double space, single sided and 10-12 pt type. Don't overdo things, write papers in the same style,length and tone as the journal and you'll be OK.
Posted by: Fabio Rojas | February 04, 2006 at 06:50 PM
I don't think Thom was holding up book reviews as anything like a Gold Standard. Rather, he was simply advising graduate students that writing one or two would be a good first step to publishing articles. And this, I think, is excellent advice for all the reasons he lists.
I must say, too, that I think that Fabio's advice concerning article publishing isn't as good as it might at first sound. To send off premature submissions in this way is to impose considerable costs on both editors and referees. Even if editors reject the (obviously) premature papers that they receive before sending them out for review they still have to read them before deciding that they should be rejected, and this is time consuming. (And editors, recall, are not paid for their service to the profession!) And if a premature paper does get sent out for review (because, say, the editor is willing to give it the benefit of the doubt), then it'll waste the referees' time, too--especially if they are concientious and try hard to give constructive feedback. Given this, I can't help but thinking that following Fabio's advice would be rather selfish--unless, of course, one just does so naively.
Incidentally, Neil Tennant has some good comments on the issue of premature submission in his Editorial for the October issue of APQ.
Posted by: James Stacey Taylor | February 04, 2006 at 10:38 PM
Is Fabio right? Is that how a graduate student ought to proceed with regard to publishing? Simply, write the paper, hit print, buy some stamps, and send it out? I always thought papers needed to be absolutely perfect before they were sent out. I would like to know what others think. Brian?
Posted by: Nicholas Rhodes | February 05, 2006 at 02:17 PM
James said: "To send off premature submissions in this way is to impose considerable costs on both editors and referees."
Let me layout my position by asking a simple question: what is the best way to learn what is a "premature" submission? How does one learn what is submittable?
Here are some obvious rules of thumb:
1.First drafts are usually junk. Mine included. The same applies for "early" drafts. What's an early draft? My guess is that most versions in the single digits are crap. My first publication was in "version 18" when it was accepted. Work your rear end off!
2. Papers that are unusually long or short for the field are junk. Length is an imperfect proxy for quality. If the standard paper in your field is 25-35 pages, then you obviously haven't learned the standard if your paper is 70 pages or 7 pages. Learn the rules of your field.
3. Papers that claim to solve amazing & oustanding problems are usually junk. Except for highly technical fields like math or symbolic logic, most "big" problems are big because they are multi-faceted, deep, and really hard. They seem immune to succinct solution. Journal publication is about slicing off a reasonable piece of the pie.
4. A paper is junk if you have not shown the paper to at least one or two smart people. Honest people who have been around the block can say "this had been done before" or "this paper needs a stronger articulation of the problem." The best resource are your brutally honest, but highly sympathetic, friends.
5. Your paper is junk if it has the obscure writing style that characterizes people who are trying to show off. Grad students (such as me about five years ago) think that big words and long sentences signal quality. Not so.
Now, by the time you are an advanced grad student or assistant prof, you will automatically know about these obvious rules of thumb. But I have learned there are other rules of thumb that no one tells you, which I am sure apply to nearly any academic field:
1. Papers that look like dissertation chapters or seminar papers will be rejected. Simply put, the dissertation is an exercise. It is pedantic and annoying. Few papers look like dissertation chapters. Journal writing is simply a different genre.
2. There are substantial differences between sub-fields in style and paper organization. Ignore the differences and the paper will be rejected. These are "obvious" to experienced writers but obscure to beginners.
3. There are intellectual taboos and subtle norms within subfields. Violate these and you will be rejected. For example, any paper on X has to cite Y. You will be attacked by reviewers if you don't master these norms.
Now, I ask, how does one learn these subtleties? Graduate school? I don't think so! While a few doctoral programs, including the one where I now work, have excellent professional writing seminars, most doctoral programs have atrocious professional preparation (including where I got my PhD).
My claim is simple: few graduate programs teach you the subtleties of style and content that allow you to successfully publish.
What should you do? The answer, my friend, is floating in the comments. PRINT AND MAIL. Don't be scared.
What about wasting referee's and editor's time? I think that is frankly a poor response. Editors and referees are not here to coddle the successful. They are here to adjudicate between high quality professional work and the rest. That involves telling beginners that their papers suck.
Think about it: does an NFL referee not call penalties for rookies? does an NFL referee only make calls when for star quarterbacks? No! The referee calls the plays for the veterans and the rookies. It's their job! And if they don't like calling plays, they should quit their job. Period.
So if you want to publish, learn the rules of your discipline as soon as you can. Follow the rules above. Comments and book reviews are nice, but don't be fooled. One or two are nice, but all your time should be spend finishing your dissertation and learning to write articles (different activities, but learn them at the same time). Articles (and monographs in the humanities/soft social sciences) are the gold standard.
To learn how to publish these items, you will have to "waste" other people's time. Most of the time, the advisor will not show you how to do it. You will have to take responsibility for your own career by learning from a pile of rejection letters.
Posted by: Fabio Rojas | February 05, 2006 at 05:07 PM
I think Professor Rojas is right that articles are the "gold standard" on publications for grad students, but I do think one should try to get work into very good shape before sending it off to journals--it will do you no good if you send a weak piece of work to a reputable journal (someone there will no your identity), but you also run the risk that a not-so-good article will get accepted (mistakes do happen), and a not-so-good article in print is, well, not so good! But reading Professor Rojas's second posting on the subject, above, I don't think he really disagrees with this.
Posted by: Brian Leiter | February 05, 2006 at 05:28 PM
I agree in the main with Fabio's advice in his second post--and with Brian's comments above. What I disagree with was Fabio's *initial* advice, which was:
"1. Write a paper. Don't worry if it sucks. Just write something.
2. Hit 'print.'
3. Buy some stamps, put the paper in an envelope, and send it to a journal."
This advice is very different from advising people to send off papers that they have worked to get into very good shape; if you've done that, then by all means send the paper off.
However, sending off papers which you have NOT worked hard on to get into very good shape is a very poor idea. This is both for Brian's reasons, above, and because sending off such papers simply *is* unfair to the referees and editors who will have to deal with them.
If one follows Fabio's original advice, one will send off a paper one hasn't really worked on much, and wait for the comments. One will then work a bit more on the paper in the light of them, and then send it off again--and so on and so on. The first few times one does this (the "premature submissions") one will be sending off drafts that should have been revised and corrected "in house". Since this is so, one is sending to editors (and referees) *more* versions of one's paper than one would have done had one worked to get the paper into good shape before submitting it. This means that there will be a set of editors and referees who will have to read it and comment on papers when this work should have been done by the author and her associates. To continue with Fabio's American football analogy, to submit prematurely in this way is to require NFL referees to referee a few additional games each season, played by people who haven't bothered practicing--and to do so unpaid! So, no, a paper doesn't have to be perfect before you send it off--but it should be as good as you can get it to be.
There's also another reason why one should make sure that one's work is as good as possible before submitting: If you don't, there's a chance that your paper will be rejected from a good journal it could have been accepted by.
Posted by: James Stacey Taylor | February 05, 2006 at 09:23 PM
My claim that graduate students should write a book review as an easy and early insight into how publishing works, as a confidence builder, and as a first (and virtually pain-free) attempt at writing for a general audience is meant only to be that. Nowhere in my piece do I claim that book reviews and/or conference papers are equal to a journal article. We all agree that journal articles are the gold standard.
Instead, my point was this: I think it is very unhelpful to give the usual advice on publishing---"write something good" and "you need to publish to get a job." This advice both doesn't say anything on what one can do to write best for journals (the bit about "finding your voice" I discuss), it makes publishing sound a more daunting task than it is, and it says absolutely nothing about the expectations one should have. All grad students know publishing is difficult. But few know how long they should wait, the editorial process, etc.
My brief article was simply meant to fill this gap. Articles are the way to go. Book reviews, in my view, are a good first step to get your feet wet, nothing more. As I note, no one gets a job because of their book reviews.
I think there is a natural progression from review to conference paper to article that is helpful in thinking about someone can develop themselves successfully at publishing. (Hitting print and posting to journals is likely to deliver rubbish at the door of journals, themselves likely to say "reject" without comments.)
(There is also the thought perhaps in the back of many minds that book reviews somehow stifle one's ability to write articles. All I can say, from my personal experience, is that this was anything but true. I finished my Ph.D. with two dozen articles...and two dozen reviews.)
Let me also say how pleased I am so many have taken the time to read my piece, whatever their disagreements with it. I have benefitted from the comments here very much.
Posted by: Thom Brooks | February 06, 2006 at 03:07 AM
Part of the difficulty for those starting out is figuring out which papers to send, and this has been much discussed here. But what about the other part, viz., figuring out where to send those papers?Most of us recognize that there is some hierarchy among journals in any discipline or sub-discipline. How does one go about figuring out this hierarchy? Once this is found out, how high up the list should one aim with the first few papers? Start at the top and work down after rejections? Start closer to the middle--where the chances of acceptance may be better--in the hopes of wasting less time in the submission process? Any thoughts on this issues?
Posted by: david | February 06, 2006 at 08:36 AM
Previously, Brian listed the best journals to publish in according to area of specialty. Be that as it may, are there journals that one should never publish in? Can having a publication in the "wrong" journal look very bad on a CV? Moreover, if you do high quality work and publish your paper in, for instance, The Journal of Nietzsche Studies, will potential employers scratch their heads and wonder why this paper is not in The European Journal of Philosophy?
Posted by: Nicholas Rhodes | February 06, 2006 at 01:45 PM
I think that the advice given by Thom Brooks is great. But it is sad that it is so rare. Grad students rarely get good advice about making the transition to professional scholar.
Book reviews are a wonderful way to get into the current literature on a topic one wants to engage in an article-not just for grad students. If there is a new book whose position must be answered in your article, the book review is a good place to start getting your ideas in order. The point is not whether book reviews are worth while or not. The point is becoming a self motivated researcher. Initiating a research project by oneself, not because it was assigned in a seminar.
The point made above about dissertations being exercises is well made. Journal articles are not dissertation chapters and they are not term papers.
The movement from Grad student to professional scholar is abrupt, and rarely do Grad programmes prepare students for it. So the trial and error method of sending off papers and fixing them is likely going to continue to be the way new academics a trained for a long while. The hard work done editing and reviewing poor articles by young academics will continue until such training becomes commonplace.
Posted by: Junior Scholar | February 06, 2006 at 06:19 PM
On a related note, does anyone have any insights as to how much certain graduate fellowships (e.g. Mellon, Javits, Fulbright) help candidates when they go on the market for the first time?
Posted by: Anonymous | February 09, 2006 at 01:33 AM
Side suggestion: I think it would be very useful to grad students if there were something like the Gourmet Report for Philosophy Journals. Certainly, it would help students in the choice of where to send their work.
Posted by: Grad Student | February 09, 2006 at 05:03 PM
Grad Student, for a survey about the quality of various journals, see
http://tar.weatherson.net/archives/002804.html
It might be on interest to you. I found it helpful.
Posted by: Rico Vitz | February 11, 2006 at 10:11 PM
Sam wrote:
"Now that I have been on the side of a hiring committee at Syracuse University, I can say without hesitation that (accepted) publications in well regarded journals can make a massive difference in order to be noticed, especially in this era of insanely inflated letters of recommendation. They do form another layer of quality control even if we all know very bad journal articles."
I have never been on a hiring committee, but I find it slightly disturbing that publications in well-respected journals might count only as further "layers of quality control". I would have hoped that they would count for at least as much as original institutional affiliation.
If the journals are, er, "well respected", that is.
Posted by: Neil McKinnon | March 27, 2006 at 04:28 AM
Thom Brooks wrote:
"I am glad that Eric and James have brought up this issue of mentioning the name of the journal at which one's paper is under review....for a while now I have wished I had a blog just so I could complain about that. It doesn't seem to make any sense. The only reasons I think someone could have to mention the name of the journal is to imply that one might soon have a publication in it, or that one is submitting to journals of quality rather than crappy journals. But surely neither of these is a good reason."
Perhaps it depends on your track record. If your CV already lists publications in commensurate journals, then there might be some advantage to this. If Mr. X already has 2 publications in Philosophical Quarterly on his CV, and we see that he has a paper under consideration at Philosophical Quarterly or a similarly ranked journal, then we might think he has a better than 10% (or whatever the acceptance rate is) chance of having his paper published there.
Posted by: Neil McKinnon | March 27, 2006 at 04:45 AM
Roberta Millstein wrote:
"So how to get an article published? A lot of people are more eloquent but here it goes:
1. Write a paper. Don't worry if it sucks. Just write something.
2. Hit "print."
3. Buy some stamps, put the paper in an envelope, and send it to a journal.
4. Wait. Write another paper while you wait."
Step 1: Isn't this a bit disrespectful towards your chosen discipline?
Obviously, we all need to eat. In order to eat, we need a job. In order to get a job in academia we need to publish. In order to publish, there needs to be some quality control. Either we can do the quality control ourselves, or we can pass that task on to others.
So, perhaps it is easiest to send something off without undue quality control on our part and rely on others for this quality control (and the feedback we will receive when our slap-dash efforts are rejected). But those others won't be getting paid for their quality control work; in fact, they won't even receive personal acknowledgement for it.
If you meant by (1), don't worry unduly whether it sucks after exerting your own quality control, then fair enough. But that wasn't clear to me, at any rate.
Posted by: Neil McKinnon | March 27, 2006 at 04:58 AM
I am sorry, but I now realise that I have made some mistaken attributions in my last few posts. I have attributed posts to those with their names above the posts rather than the names below.
Ideally, I would prefer to have those attributions amended, but this is probably not significant enough to waste the moderator's time.
Therefore, I suggest that he just not approve my previous posts for inclusion in this thread..
Thanks & sorry,
Neil
Posted by: Neil McKinnon | March 27, 2006 at 05:07 AM
QUALITY OF JOURNALS
The following link was provided as a resource on the quality of various journals:
http://tar.weatherson.net/archives/002804.html
Unfortunately the link led me nowhere. Does anyone know of another one, or where this survey might have been moved? Thanks.
Posted by: Per Smith | August 18, 2006 at 08:53 AM