Via the Weatherson blog. Another argument for more open access venues like Philosophers' Imprint.
UPDATE: Tamler Sommers (Houston) writes:
My guess is that the reason PPR and Nous are swamped is because they have, by far, the most responsible reviewing process of the very top journals. They get back to people within a month, usually with helpful comments even if they reject. If they accept, you get to put a great 'forthcoming' publication on your CV, which can help you get a job or move up in the world even if the article takes forever to actually come out. As a junior faculty member, you have a strong incentive to choose them for an initial submission over other journals.
So Open Access is great, but a bigger issue is reviewing practices. If Open Access can help with that, then it's the best of all possible worlds. If not, there's still a real problem and the journals who address it--open access or not--will have to take frequent moritoriums.
Comments open for those who want to continue the 'open access' discussion or react to Professor Sommers's observations.
