If anything is a dispiriting disincentive

a barrier to philosophical discussion

moncler outlet Kieran Healy recent research on citation rates in philosophy broadly indicates trends. As he put it, “on the average hardly anyone is getting cited, be they man or woman.” These trends are in marked contrast to the sciences, where (according to the first study linked to above): moncler outlet

Over 50% of natural science and social science papers receive at least one citation within two years.

About 70% receive at least one citation after five years.

moncler sale Citation rates in both areas have and steadily the past several decades. moncler sale

moncler jacket sale Why are citation rates so low in the humanities, and in philosophy moncler outlet specifically? And is this a problem? If so, what should be done about it? these are very big questions, and we cannot hope adequately address them here. Instead what I would like to do is focus on a particular issue I have some concerns about: on “replies” to articles in other journals. I have heard more than a few people say things like, “Most published papers in philosophy are bad so it is no wonder they are not discussed”). Although I deeply disagree with this suggestion from my vantage point, there appear be too many good papers that are underdiscussed, not too many bad papers that are discussed I am not sure we can evaluate the hypothesis without considering possible that is, possible why so few papers are discussed. I want to suggest that the common editorial that many journals have of not accepting “replies” to articles in other journals may be just such a confound. moncler jacket sale

For those who may not know what a “reply” piece is (sometimes they are also called “discussion notes”), a reply is a publication that primarily, or exclusively, another paper, aiming (for instance) to refute or otherwise undermine its This is in contrast to what are sometimes called “free standing” or “stand alone” papers papers that focus primarily on developing an positive argument of their own. Allow me to explain why I think this plausibly erects several related barriers to philosophical discussion.

1. The False Negative Problem

moncler outlet store The first concern I have about the practice of journals not considering replies to articles in other journals concerns the prospect of “false negatives” that is, replies being published. Here is how I think this problem arises. If one can submit a reply to only one journal, whether the reply is ever published all comes down to the judgments of set of editors and/or reviewers. Yet, as we all know, the peer review process can be “noisy.” one set of reviewers or editors at one journal judge worthy of rejection, reviewers or editors at another journal may judge to be and important. My book Knowledge and Practical Interests is the fifth most cited work of philosophy since 2000 in Phil Review, Mind, Nous, and the Journal of Philosophy (book or article). Yet the book itself is the result of three revise and resubmits, and finally a rejection from Phil https://www.moncler-jacket-outlet.com Review. One of those drafts was also rejected from Mind, and also from Nous. All of those journals have accepted papers discussing, in many cases very centrally, a work those very journals have deemed unpublishable. moncler outlet store

moncler sale outlet I have heard many stories like this, of papers that were evidently rejected (and in some cases, desk rejected) at journals before being published (I seem to recall hearing somewhere this was true of Chalmers and Andy Clark famous article in on the extended mind). whether it is published) come down to the (potentially mistaken, biased, etc.) judgments of set of individuals, who may well reject a perfectly good/important paper. In order to ensure that a system is working as it should, there must be some transparent way to check how the system is working. When it comes to the normal process of submitting articles for review, the process is relatively transparent in this regard. Although sometimes our papers are desk rejected cheap moncler outlet (a non transparent decisionmaking process), over the course of multiple submissions to multiple the process becomes increasingly For example, if your manuscript is desk rejected at many journals, that is some relatively transparent reason to think the manuscript is unpublishable in its present form as it shows that multiple editors at different journals all buy moncler jackets came to the same decision. Conversely, if your manuscript is not desk rejected at some journals and particularly, if one receives reviewer comments then, at least over time, one typically gains some insight as to the quality of one paper: one may get negative reviewer reports explaining why one paper isn publishable, or perhaps some positive referee reports suggesting that it is publishable (or at least may be with some revision). moncler sale outlet

cheap moncler outlet In contrast, the “no replies to articles in other journals” rule makes the publishing process for replies decidedly something like the proverbial “black box” that one cannot see into. After all, if your reply is rejected without explanation, and you can only send it to one journal, you basically have to give up on it, and may be left with idea the paper was rejected. This is for the simple reason that, in contrast with normal articles which again, one can send many places with any given one can only get data point: the decision of the single journal to which one sends it. But one data point gives very little information, especially if (as is often the case with replies) one paper is rejected without comment. The Disincentivization Problem cheap moncler outlet

cheap moncler jackets sale In addition to the false positive problem, the rule against publishing replies to articles in other journals plausibly raises a second barrier to philosophical discussion: it disincentivizes people from writing replies to being with. cheap moncler jackets sale

moncler outlet uk As cheap moncler sale I mentioned above, my first two publications were replies. Not only that: I very much enjoy moncler outlet store writing replies. Like many philosophers, I “enjoy me a good refutation”! And indeed, critically evaluating arguments is one of the most central and important skills we learn as philosophers. discussion only benefits from critical engagement with people arguments. It provides a clearer picture of which arguments and theories are good, which are bad, which can be improved, etc. Yet, although I very much enjoy writing replies, basically stopped writing them. For a while, I wrote a few replies that I thought were strong. But, when they were desk rejected without explanation, I couldn help but think to myself, “Why bother doing this? Why bother writing refutations that I have only one shot of publishing, and which may be rejected without any explanation?” Writing cheap moncler coats replies takes time. Given that stand alone articles cheap moncler can be submitted to many journals, once I started publishing standalone articles, I simply cheap moncler jackets figured my time would be better spent on them, not replies. Hence, I don write replies. I have been from writing them. moncler outlet uk

cheap moncler coats I suspect I am probably alone here. What incentive is there for anyone to write replies when the costs of writing them are significant, but one only has one shot to publish them? This problem is only compounded, I think, by the problem of non transparency mentioned above. If anything is a dispiriting disincentive, it seems to me, that is. Why write and submit a reply when (A) chances are, it will be rejected (since most papers are rejected!), (B) one can only submit it one place, and (C) one may get no transparent explanation for whatever decision is reached at the one place you can actually send it? cheap moncler coats

moncler outlet jackets 3. The Misapplication Problem moncler outlet jackets

I also think there may also be some reasons to worry whether the editorial rule against publishing replies to articles in other journals may be a manner that plausibly erects a third barrier to philosophical engagement.

cheap moncler Generally speaking, “replies” are very short (2 3K words) and purely negative in nature, critiquing a particular paper. However, I have some experience with papers that I do not think are properly moncler sale outlet considered replies being desk rejected. Here is such a case: one writes a very long and involved paper that (A) begins with a refutation of an article in a rival journal, and then (B) uses the moncler outlet online refutation as a springboard for a novel positive argument. it aims to use problems with the earlier argument to motivate a novel positive argument), the paper basically has to begin with a refutation of an article in a rival journal. the argument being “replied” to). And indeed, my experience is that the disincentive problem arises here yet again. full length papers critiquing someone else framework, and then attempting to provide a better framework of my own), I have mostly abandoned them, preferring once again to write and publish “stand alone” papers. But this is just to say, once again, that I have been disincentivized from doing something that the citation statistics outlined above indicate: I moncler mens jackets have been disincentivized from actually engaging with the work of my fellow philosophers. And once again, I suspect I am not alone. cheap moncler

cheap moncler jackets 4. The Chicken and Egg/ in the Door Problem cheap moncler jackets

moncler jackets outlet Finally, to return to an issue we discussed last week, I think there are plausible reasons to worry whether the current rule against replies to articles in other journals might make it more difficult for early career philosophers to “get their foot in the door” in terms of getting their work discussed in the literature. As this study, “Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?” suggests, there appears to be a good deal of preexisting “inertia” in the scientific literature. Academic literatures generally seem to revolve around the ideas and arguments of people who already “have their foot in the door.” a person work receives “uptake” in an academic literature, discussion of their ideas may generate some or moncler sale further discussion in the literature. as Marketeer noted here, when a person work had “uptake” one may have to reviewers that the work in question warrants discussion. But, of course, that may be difficult to do! All of which brings us back to the false negative and disincentive problems. If replies are already disincentivized, and it can be difficult to get reviewers to publish discussions of that have no “uptake”, the very fact that replies can only be submitted to one journal plausibly makes it the more difficult an article to get the kind of “uptake” in the first place necessary for reviewers to be amenable to papers discussing one work. Given the current status of philosophical discussion today where, again, 80 % of papers are never cited, let alone discussed I think these things should worry us. If anything, our discipline should be trying to more cross discussion, not squelch it. First, opening up one own journal to replies to articles in other journals promises to the content of one own journal. It would plausibly provide readers with engagement with the rest ofthe literature that (for reasons given above) are currently disincentivized. Second, critiques, refutations, and improvements of work in other journals appearing your own journal promises to the prestige of one own journal relative to others (as it would show readers that one own journal publishes stronger work than the work in other journals being critiqued). Nevertheless, I am optimistic about whether the volume concern can be surmounted. First, some journals (such as already consider replies to articles in other journals, and some of the quickest turnaround times around! Second, it seems to me that journals could handle volume problems creatively for instance, by merely asking for a “thumbs up/thumbs down” verdict from reviewers (as opposed to the standard written justification for reviewer recommendations), or perhaps placing a cap on how many reply submissions they can accept for monlcer down jackets review annually. moncler jackets outlet

moncler outlet sale In any case, although I think the volume concern is a serious one, I think there are a number of reasons for our discipline to have a more open conversation about whether philosophical engagement might be improved by removing or modifying the standard editorial restrictions on replies, and if so, how journals might do so effectively and feasibly. moncler outlet sale

moncler outlet online Other things equal, one would prefer to edit a better journal Moncler Outlet than a worse one. Since one common metric people use to judge the quality of a journal is citation rates, therefore one has a reason to want to increase the citation rate of one journal. Further, replies to pieces in other journals are less likely to increase your journal citation rate than original pieces, so it makes sense to bar replies to pieces in other journals moncler outlet online.