The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

  • Does time under review predict particular editorial decisions?

    In our newest “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

    Is anyone aware of information about the time a paper spends under review and the subsequent decision? When I think about it, I’m pretty sure every paper I’ve had accepted was reviewed within a relatively quick time (say, six months at the very most), whereas whenever I’ve waited more than six months it has been rejected. It could be purely coincidental, but perhaps, say, a reviewer that leaves it for ages, then gets pushed by the editor for it, is quicker in their review (and so seeks out a few reasons for rejection) or is put in a slightly negative mood towards it, etc. etc.

    One reason I ask is that, if there is something to this, it suggests one may have good reason to pull a paper from a journal if it has been under review for a long time and to submit it elsewhere, on the basis that the longer it is under review, the greater the odds of rejection. As I say, I’m aware that this is speculative, but I’m curious whether others have noted a similar phenomenon.

    At least anecdotally, this seems to cohere with my general experience. If it is a real thing, I suspect there might be a multiplicity of reasons for it, such as referees taking longer to write critical reviews (which plausibly require much more thought and detail), editors seeking out a third review if there is a split recommendation between two initial reviews (one recommending acceptance, another major revisions or rejection, etc.). But again, this is just speculation.

    What do readers think? Any helpful insights to share?

    3

  • Does is matter how recent a job applicant’s teaching experience is?

    In our newest “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

    Does it matter how recent a job applicant’s teaching experience is? If I’ve just completed a year of adjuncting, can I pivot to more research-oriented positions (e.g., non-teaching postdoc, permanent research associateship)? Or will committees desire recent teaching experience, such that I should continue adjuncting with some regularity? If so, how much would be a good benchmark?

    I’m not sure, but I suspect that (A) a longer, several-year gap might cause more problems than a short gap (at least for competitiveness for jobs at teaching-focused institutions), and (B) there’s also the issue of perceptions of the candidate’s trajectory/values (i.e., the candidate looking more aligned with research than teaching). But these are just off-the-cuff reactions.

    What do readers think?

    3

  • Can official reporting procedures for sexual harassment be trusted?

    In our newest “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

    I would like to ask about the attitude toward sexual harassment in North American philosophy. A friend of mine has recently experienced something involving a professor. After hearing about other students’ experiences, she feels unsure about trusting official reporting procedures. At the same time, she is worried that, in academia, if a well-known philosopher commits this kind of misconduct, people might not take it seriously.

    Do any readers have helpful insights to share?

    8

  • Publishing work critical of your institution’s (e.g. religious) values?

    In our newest “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

    How do you handle publishing work that could appear to be critical of values held by your institution? Imagine you’re publishing on atheism at a religious school. Philosophers are good at distinguishing between endorsing a view and defending it or recognizing the weight of reasons behind it. But students and administrators are not always. There are ways of making clear that you are interested in a position, or find an argument persuasive, without accepting it, e.g., saying as much in print, or offering the argument conditionally. But I suspect that some will take up a more political stance and see any interest in certain views as damning enough. How might one handle such situations?

    Do any readers have helpful insights or experiences to share?

    8