I'm curious to know whether cover letters that accompany journal submissions make any difference — whether editors read them, whether the letters influence publication decisions, etc. I've always treated this as pro forma: "Dear Editors, Please consider this manuscript for a future issue ofthe journal," etc. But I've had scientists tell me that significant effort goes into crafting their cover letters because the significance of the work may not be obvious. Is that so in philosophy — that explaining the significance of a submission will help its publication chances?
I'm applying for an intramural grant to work on a perfectly ordinary, non X-phi, piece of philosophy. (I want to think about the claim that someone like a florist might make that being required to provide services to a same-sex wedding violates her freedom of association in light of On Liberty.) I'm required to spell out my "Study Design/Methodology." More specifically: "Provide a detailed account of precisely what will be done to answer the question(s) or test the hypothesi(/e)s. Include plans for the protection of human or animal subjects and the environment." I think that I can provide convicing assurances that my project poses little risk to the environment. But how have other philosophers finessed these questions about methodology that are obviously formulated with empirical work in mind?
Call for Submissions
A Networking and Mentoring Workshop
for Graduate Student Women in Philosophy
Co-Directors: Elisabeth Camp, Elizabeth Harman, and Jill North
Female PhD and DPhil students and prospective students in philosophy are invited to submit papers on any topic in philosophy to participate in a workshop at Princeton University, August 21-24, 2014.
Thirty-five students will be selected to participate. Seven students will have their papers discussed; fourteen students will serve as commentators, and fourteen as chairs. In addition to the seven philosophy sessions, there will be five sessions at which professional advice is offered by twelve faculty mentors.
I've been doing a lot of refereeing for conferences, journals, prizes and such and a recent discussion with some of my co-referees leads me to want to post here about anonymous refereeing. My main aim here will be to list some of the ways authors screw up in anonymizing papers and also to raise a question or two about trickier points of making a paper truly anonymous. But I want to state out front that I think all refereed conferences should require that papers be anonymized when they are submitted. I know that in a small profession we will often have some idea who wrote papers, but I think we still ought to do the best we can within that constraint. (Continued below the fold.)
This is merely a request for information. I know that there are lots and lots of applied ethics journals covering bioethics, health care ethics, global ethics, environmental ethics, business ethics, health care ethics, ethics of war and conflict and many other types of applied ethics and applied political philosophy, and there are of course general applied ethics journals too. Would anyone know of a somewhat comrehensive list of all these journals? I tried to look for one but couldn't easily find one. Also, is there any kind of ranking of how prestigious and widely read these journals are? The reason I ask is that I see quite a lot of CVs with publications in these journals I never even knew existed and it would be pretty handy to have more information of these venues. It would be useful for many of our students too. Thanks for help in advance if anyone has more information.
I am pleased to announce the official launch of Philosophical Trajectories, a data-collection project dedicated to helping philosophers learn from each other's publishing experiences. Many thanks to those of you who helped with the beta testing. I encourage everyone to participate; the more data we collect, the more useful the site will become. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please don't hesitate to email me.
I communcate with lots of academics regularly, as I'm sure most readers of this blog do. This is not surprising. But what I do find surprising is how frequently academics simply do not respond to, or even acknowledge, communications from professional colleagues. This includes communications of the following sorts: invitations to give a talk, invitations to contribute a paper, invitations to review a paper, messages sharing a copy of published work that engages their views, messages sharing in-progress work that engages their views, and messages asking specific questions about their own published work. (The list is not exhaustive.)