By Amy Ferrer, APA Executive Director, and John Heil, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the APA

No doubt you’ve heard, over the last year or so, about the impending launch of the new Journal of the American Philosophical Association. With the editorial board having been announced earlier this month, the journal is now a living, breathing reality.

One especially notable feature of the journal is the commitment of the editorial team to diversity. The mission statement of the journal approved by the APA board of officers affirms that it will not only recognize, but in fact represent, the many facets of philosophy as a discipline. Members of the editorial board were selected not only for their scholarly abilities but also for their commitment to this aspect of thejournal’s mission. In the coming months, we plan to have representatives of the journal attending conferences in a variety of philosophical disciplines, seeking out good papers and encouraging submissions.

The journal will aim for full coverage, actively soliciting the best work from every philosophical constituency. We are well aware that many analytic philosophers are skeptical of work in non-analytic areas, and vice versa. By seeking papers addressed to a broader philosophical audience, we hope to challenge this skepticism by encouraging contributors to write in ways that make the virtues of their ideas salient to philosophers from varied backgrounds.

The journal is not just about publishing exciting work—although that is certainly a priority—it is about publishing exciting work that is accessible to the broader philosophical community, work that potentially blurs boundaries within the discipline and, where appropriate, reaches out to other disciplines. We do not hope, unreasonably, to produce a journal in which every reader finds every paper congenial—this is a philosophy journal, after all. Our hope, rather, is to provide a venue for papers that are interesting and important philosophically and wear their interest and importance on their sleeves.

The editors intend the journal to be not simply another philosophy journal, not simply one more place to send papers in hopes of adding entries on CVs. We are responding to a complaint heard more and more nowadays to the effect that journal papers have become more plentiful without becoming more interesting. We suspect that one cause of the current situation stems from the refereeing process. Referees find themselves looking for reasons to reject papers under review. When authors receive the resulting comments they respond by adding material and inserting qualifications, with the result that an initially interesting idea becomes lost in a long discussion of the literature supplemented by preemptive responses to potential lines of criticism. The results are, too often, papers written by committee.

As our editorial statement indicates, we favor clear, succinct papers that go out on a limb, papers that take a chance, papers exhibiting fresh perspectives on familiar problems. This is of a piece with our goal of encouraging discussion across a wide variety of philosophical areas. Once the journal is running at full speed, our goal will be short response times and useful feedback, both of which promise to help early career philosophers get the best of their ideas into print and build the kind of meaningful publication record needed to secure a permanent position and earn tenure.

You might remain skeptical that any journal could live up to these goals—that any journal could be a truly generalist journal, representing the demographic and scholarly diversity of the field, publishing important work from across the philosophical spectrum accessible to philosophers of different persuasions, while addressing some of the biggest challenges in publishing. It is a tall order, to be sure. But we are confident not only that it can work and will work, but that it promises significant benefits to philosophers generally, APA members and non-members alike. At a time in which philosophy, the humanities, and higher education itself are under threat, it behooves us to come together in a way that preserves our interesting differences.

So we hope you’ll join us in making the Journal of the American Philosophical Association a success. Submissions are open.

 [Please note: Our appearance on this blog does not constitute an endorsement by the APA of the blog or its content.]

Posted in , ,

20 responses to “Diversity, publishing, and the Journal of the APA”

  1. Matt Avatar

    Amy, can you say something more about the idea of having some of the editorial board members looking for papers and encouraging submissions? How do you see this working? (I understand that you are not on the editorial board, but I’m hoping you’re privy to the discussions, or can ask.) Are there worries about compromising blind review in this way? Or, would solicited papers be treated somewhat differently? (My impression is that many journals, perhaps especially newer ones but not only those, solicit a lot of material, especially from ‘top’ people. I don’t necessarily think this is problematic, but think it’s more worrisome when the solicited material is not in some way distinguished from the material submitted in the normal way- by marking it as a ‘symposium piece’ or something like that.)
    I’d also like to hear a bit more about the desirability of “succinct” papers. Of course, if the alternative is a wordy or bloated one, then succinct is clearly preferable. But, if it primarily means “short”, I’m not sure it’s such a desirable goal. Philosophy papers are generally quite short, and there are very few journals that welcome longer papers. But many topics cannot be properly addressed in 5-20 pages, or so I’d claim. So, I’d be interested to know how this aspect is expected to work.
    Matt Lister

    Like

  2. William Blattner Avatar

    Bravo! This is an admirable ambition, and I wish you success.

    Like

  3. Marcus Arvan Avatar

    Amy and John: This is really exciting news. Might I suggest that the journal consider something the methodology I tentatively proposed at the Philosophers’ Cocoon for advancing precisely the kinds of editorial concerns and priorities your new journal has? (see http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/03/rethinking-journal-reviewing-standards-a-rough-first-pass.html )

    Like

  4. Jonathan Birch Avatar

    Following on from Matt Lister’s comment, I’m surprised to hear that you are ‘actively soliciting’ articles. I think talk of ‘soliciting’ an article usually connotes that it will get preferential treatment over unsolicited manuscripts, which I presume is not the case here. Perhaps this could be clarified.

    Like

  5. John Heil Avatar
    John Heil

    Matt: First, we do not think that encouraging conference attendees to submit papers compromises the reviewing process. The entire editorial team is on the lookout for interesting papers, and we are encouraging submissions from a wide variety of philosophers. Submitted papers go through an anonymizing procedure that ensures anonymity from the time of submission on. It is hard to see how this would compromise the fairness of the evaluation process.
    Second, the journal has a mandated 10,000 word limit (including footnotes and references). This comes to around 20 journal pages. We do not say that succinct papers are better, only that, as a generalist journal, the kinds of papers we are looking for–papers that could be read by philosophers who do not share the author’s specialty–work best if kept under 10,000 words.
    There is another angle here. We would like to discourage the idea that a paper that contains an interesting thesis need also include exhaustive literature surveys or preemptive discussions of possible objections, or both. We would like authors to go out on a limb, to advance bold claims, to move beyond the same old same old. And, again, we believe that a 10,000-word limit encourages authors to produce such papers.

    Like

  6. LK McPherson Avatar
    LK McPherson

    All of this sounds promising.
    A question: would submitted papers, particularly the “encouraged” ones, be reviewed in house by the editorial team or sent out for review? If generally they would be sent out, this probably is in tension with the purposes of the first and the third aims. (I have this problem as a section editor for the new-ish online journal Ergo, which has similar aims.)

    Like

  7. David Wallace Avatar
    David Wallace

    This is a question I could ask about any whole-philosophy journal: what’s your view on accessibility? Are you willing to take papers that assume some technical knowledge of ancient Greek, or modal logic, or general relativity? Or are you intending everything to be basically-readable by anyone with a philosophy training?

    Like

  8. John Heil Avatar
    John Heil

    Here is a link to the journal’s Instructions to Contributors, which should answer some of the questions being raised here:
    http://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/images/APA_ifc.pdf
    Because we are a generalist journal, we are open to papers on topics covered by specialist journals, but written in a way that could be appreciated by philosophers who might not work in the author’s specialty. In this we are no different from other generalist journals. Where we differ is in the breadth of our intended coverage.
    All papers are reviewed ‘in house’ in the sense that they are shepherded through the system by members of the editorial team (who lack access to authors’ names). Soliciting submissions is just that: soliciting submissions, asking people, individually or collectively, to submit papers. All submissions will of course be subject to the same review process, no matter the source.

    Like

  9. Roberta L. Millstein Avatar

    Any thoughts about how you will work for referees who are expecting the long lit review and defense against possible objections, and who might be resistant to papers that go out on a limb? I trust you will give referees guidelines. But what will be done if the refeerees seem not to be following the guidelines of the journal? I envision that many of us will need to be “trained” to referee in a new way. Don’t get me wrong — I think that’s a good thing! I’m just wondering if you all have thoughts about how to handle referee reports which seem not to be in JAPA’s spirit.

    Like

  10. David Wallace Avatar
    David Wallace

    Let me flag that requiring submissions in Word (and in particular, not in LaTeX) is a really major nuisance for some of us – especially those using symbols of various kinds, which are 1-2 orders of magnitude more time-consuming to format in Word. I appreciate that this may be out of your control, but I’ve also found that philosophers working in some non-technical areas don’t appreciate how widely LaTeX is now used and how much of a pain it is to ask people who habitually publish in LaTeX to use Word.

    Like

  11. Sara L. Uckelman Avatar

    Two comments, triggered by #5 and #10.
    – I’ve never understood why bibliographies should count towards word limits for articles. Why should I be penalized for citing sources that have long titles, were published in journals that have long titles, or have otherwise complicated publication info? That is just bizarre.
    – Requiring submissions in Word pretty much guarantees that I will only submit to your journal as a last resort. The amount of effort it takes to convert a paper written in LaTeX into something which meets the bare minimum standard for readability is for the most part not worth it. (The last time I had to convert a logic paper into Word, I gave up on trying to figure out how to represent my formulas. I took screenshots of the PDFs, and included them in the Word version as images.)

    Like

  12. John Heil Avatar
    John Heil

    Submission guidelines for the Journal of the American Philosophical Association include the following:
    ‘we recommend saving your text documents in .doc or .docx format, if possible’
    The aim is not to limit submissions to Word files, but to ensure that papers aren’t submitted as PDFs. The journal does in fact allow for papers to be submitted as LaTeX files. We’ll be modifying the existing guidelines to reflect this fact.

    Like

  13. Sara L. Uckelman Avatar

    What is the motivation for not accepting PDFs? For refereeing purposes, is it necessary to have an editable version of the file? (This is meant to be a sincere question: I have never received anything other than PDFs when I’ve referred, nor do I receive anything other than PDFs for the journal I’m on the editorial board of).
    If you do accept LaTeX files, be sure that whatever software (if any) you’re using also allows the uploading of supplementary files, such as images, bibtex files, etc., otherwise having just the single .tex won’t be sufficient to generate a version that the referees can review.

    Like

  14. Dan Hicks Avatar

    I want to second this point.
    In addition, I’d like to suggest that the editorial board take some time to consider other dimensions of diversity within philosophy that they (we) might want to promote (or not) through the review standards, if they haven’t done so already. We’re not only split between analytic and continental; we’re also split over, for example, the standing of feminist philosophy, or highly empirical work that straddles the border between philosophy and social science.

    Like

  15. John Heil Avatar
    John Heil

    The Journal is Published by Cambridge University Press, which deploys the ScholarOne system to process papers from the time they are submitted until they are in print. ScholarOne converts editable files to PDF files that are used for refereeing purposes. We are no different in this regard from any Journal that uses ScholarOne – or for that matter similar systems that are set up to manage submissions in particular ways.

    Like

  16. John Heil Avatar
    John Heil

    We spell out our reviewing desiderata in the note that accompanies the link that takes a reviewer to the paper to be reviewed. The editorial team is responsible, not only for the evaluation of papers and the selection of reviewers, but also for the evaluation of reviewers’ reasons for their recommendations.

    Like

  17. Roberta L. Millstein Avatar

    Sounds good. Perhaps there will be a learning curve for some, but hopefully it won’t be a steep one. Perhaps letting reviewers see other reviewers’ comments after the fact (with names removed, of course), together with the ultimate decision, might be helpful in this regard.

    Like

  18. Ehud Avatar
    Ehud

    Some interdisciplinary journals have detailed web forms for reviewers to fill, which include questions such as “Which aspects of the paper are you most qualified to assess?”, “Which aspects do you feel least confident about assessing?” “Do you think researchers outside the specific field will benefit from the paper?” etc. I found this to be very helpful not only in structuring my reports but in conveying what the journal is looking for.

    Like

  19. Jeff Horty Avatar

    John and Sara, on Scholar One and pdf’s, we had this issue at the JPL, where the Editorial Manager system that that journal uses wasn’t configured to accept pdf’s as inputs. (That system also builds submissions into a big pdf file for internal management.) Springer management kept insisting that EM couldn’t be modified, there was no way to accept pdf’s, etc. But as soon as they let us talk to some technical people, it turned out that configuring the system to allow pdf’s was easy, they’d be happy to do it. So it might be worth exploring with techies at CUP whether Scholar One lets you do that too. It would surprise me if it didn’t – people assemble pdf’s all the time.

    Like

  20. Sam Tobin-Hochstadt Avatar

    I’m a computer scientist, and some journals I publish in are at CUP (and use ScholarOne), and they certainly take PDFs. At the final publishing stage, I believe they want TeX source, but for reviewing only PDF is needed.

    Like

Leave a comment