It is radical but my idea is that one submits to ranking houses (which could remain the existing journals). Every paper submitted will be published online and ranked. You may submit a paper only once. You fix it up in light of (presumably more careful and more numerous) referee reports, but then it is published with a numerical ranking. Advantages include 1) less refereeing overall and so, potentially, more careful refereeing from people who more closely specialize in the area. 2) much quicker time from submission to publication, eliminating pressure to choose where to submit on strategic grounds, 3) encourages people to finish papers before submitting them, rather than treating submissions as entering a lottery 4) as is the difference between just in and just out of a journal is enormous–this system allows one to get credit for “very close to making it into Phil Rev”. Call this the Wine Spectator Model.
Eric Schwitzgebel writes:
Here are four things I care intensely about: being a good father, being a good philosopher, being a good teacher, and being a morally good person. It would be lovely if there were never any tradeoffs among these four aims.
Explicitly acknowledging such tradeoffs is unpleasant — sufficiently unpleasant that it’s tempting to try to rationalize them away. It’s distinctly uncomfortable to me, for example, to acknowledge that I would probably be better as a father if I traveled less for work. (I am writing this post from a hotel room in England.) Similarly uncomfortable is the thought that the money I’ll be spending on a family trip to Iceland this summer could probably save a few people from death due to poverty-related causes, if given to the right charity.
Today I’ll share two of my favorite techniques for rationalizing the unpleasantness away. Maybe you’ll find these techniques useful too!
Considerations in favor of supporting such divestment and advice about how to get started here.
As has been widely discussed both here (at least a couple of times) and elsewhere, there are numerous problems with traditional publishing models. Some of these have been admirably addressed by the move to open access journals like Philosophers’ Imprint and Ergo. For the most part, however, these journals have simply exported the traditional publishing process to the Internet. I think it’s time we try something genuinely new. To that end, I’ve put together a prospectus for a new project, Populus, that will be both a curated archive (think (the non-horrific parts of) Reddit meets PhilPapers) and a philosophy journal with an experimental crowd-source peer review process. I am coming to you, Soupers, because:
- I’m looking for feedback on the project itself and/or its expression through the prospectus.
- I’m hoping those of you who support the project, or at least think it’s worth a go, will help me spread the word.
- I’m looking for help.
- I’d like to put together an editorial board whose association with the project will boost its credibility. I anticipate this’ requiring little actual work. If you are a famous person who likes my idea and would like to get on board, that would be great.
- This project will likely require some funding. I’m looking for suggestions for sources.
- I need people with web development or other relevant technical experience who would like to donate (or, if we get funding, be paid for) their time.
- I’m looking for people who want to help or get involved in any other way, especially ones with the general entrepreneurial skills I lack.
Here that’s link one more time: Populus Prospectus
I'd be curious to know if some of our contributors and readers would be interested in collaborating with me on creating an open online textbook in moral theory. Open source textbooks hold promise in reducing costs to students and making scholarly knowledge more publicly available. There are quite a lot of open resources in philosophy (particularly in logic, it seems) but not a high quality textbook on normative moral theory. I'll admit to not knowing all that much about some of the likely technical issues (the design and layout, how best to disseminate such works, etc.) we would face, but my thought is that a team of 3-5 with the right technical knowhow, a strong publishing history in moral theory, and some pedagogical flair could create a great resource.
Please contact me if you're interested – thanks!
I hope to gather information about undergraduate degree programs that somehow combine philosophy and law. A few examples include Indiana University PA, Georgia State, Lewis, and USC. I am looking only at degree programs administered by philosophy departments, and that have the word "law" somewhere in the description of the major, so that a student or an administrator would see the program as combining something marketable (law) with philosophy.
Are there other such programs? Do they attract majors? Do they attract students to the college itself? Any advice on how to get one's own university (ahem) to look favorably upon proposing such a degree program?
Thanks to a major grant ($600,000) awarded to the APA by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Philosophy in an Inclusive Key Summer Institute (PIKSI) program is expanding to Boston — among other undergraduate diversity initiatives that this grant will make possible over a three year period.
PIKSI-Boston will take place August 2-8 2015 at MIT, Cambridge, MA; PIKSI-Rock will be held June 13-22 2015 at Penn State University, State College, PA. Applicants may apply to either program, or both. The deadline for applications is this Friday March 13, so please encourage undergraduates/recent graduates who might benefit from these terrific programs to apply (more details are below the fold).