A longtime reader writes:
I'm wondering whether anyone in your circle has remarked on the recent overhaul of the venerable journal Analysis. For decades (a century?) this journal's 'brand' was brief rigorous articles dealing with very circumscribed arguments or issues in philosophy. Now they have reduced the number of articles from about 15 per issue to about 5 per issue, in the interest of including a Book Symposium in each issue (a la Phil. and Phenom. Res.) and expanding book reviews and 'state of the art' review articles.
I sent the following note to the editor last August, and received no response:
I've been a subscriber since 2007. I am a lifetime APA member and have had a serious interest in philosophy (primarily analytic) since the late 70s, though I am not a PhD and thus technically not a "philosophical professional". I've recently been involved in some of the editing of Kripke's unpublished work via the CUNY Center. I have submitted a couple of manuscripts to Analysis in the past, and it is one of my favorite journals. I'm sure you've heard this before, but what the hell is going on with the recent dearth of 'short' papers, which has historically been Analysis's calling card? Don't we philosophers have FEW ENOUGH possibilities for publication in well-regarded journals at the present time without this reduction? Are you aiming for the 'canonical' 12 articles a year of The Philosophical Review? I would rate your sections in increasing order of value now thus: Critical Notices (low), Book Reviews, Recent Work, and Articles (high). It's not that the 'back matter' is worthless, but how can we afford to lack the sort of venue that once published Anscombe's 'On Brute Facts', for example (NB: the current learned disputants about 'grounding', including people who should know better like Fine, seem never to have heard of that paper)? (I'm going to assume that you have been under some sort of pressure to go this way, and don't blame you personally.)
Perhaps you could raise this question in the Reports. Does anyone else resent this loss of a unique and historically distinguished publication venue and resource?
I've not been following changes at Analysis, though recall that they proposed to broaden the subject areas covered, which seemed a welcome development. Thoughts from readers on the preceding? (Please submit your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.)