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

The Submission Dilemma

So I run into a dilemma quite a lot when I'm thinking of where to submit papers, and I wonder how other people approach it.

The dilemma is simple. Suppose you have a paper that you think will make an important contribution to the discipline (I trust many of us feel this way about many of our papers – so let's set aside the question of whether one is right). Chances are, of course, that you've spent a great deal of time on the paper. And so now you are thinking of where to submit it.

On the one hand, you can shoot for top-ranked journals. Of course, if you do, chances are it will get rejected, and it may bounce around the review process for a couple of years (4 months at, say, Nous, then six months at Phil Review, etc.). During that time, there's a significant chance you will get "scooped" (i.e. someone will publish a similar idea/argument before you have the chance). I say there's a significant chance of this happening, because, well, I've been scooped several times now, and it just has to happen a lot (at any given point in time, there are almost surely going to be other people thinking similar thoughts!).

On the other hand, you can shoot for lower-ranked journals. Chances are, if you go this route, you won't get scooped. You'll likely get your idea into print relatively quickly (at least if it's any good), because lower-ranked journals have higher acceptance rates. Unfortunately, if you publish it in a lower-ranked journal, several bad things can come of it: (A) the piece will get ignored, (B) you'll have/add-to your track record of publishing in lower-ranked journals (which can detract from your philosophical reputation, to whatever extent you have one).

In other words, there are real risks whichever way you go. If you spend all of your time shooting for top-ranked journals, you may find yourself getting scooped on some really good ideas (an awful result), but you may hit it big. On the other hand, if you shoot for lower-ranked journals, you probably won't get scooped nearly as often (you'll at least get your ideas out in print), but you may fail to build a good publishing reputation.

How do people approach the issue? For my part, I basically play it by ear. Sometimes I send stuff to top journals, sometimes I don't. In just about every case, though, I find myself concerned about the decision. I worry that if I send the piece in question to top-places, it'll probably just bounce around for a year or two and someone else will publish on it first. On the other hand, I worry that if I send it to a lower-ranked journal…it'll be published in a lower-ranked journal.

How do people deal with the issue? Just curious!

Posted in

14 responses to “The Submission Dilemma”

  1. AE-CP

    I find the notion of getting “scooped” in philosophy somewhat bizarre. I suppose if you say it happens than I have little reason to doubt you, but it just seems so unlikely that other people are trying to publish the exact same idea at the same time that you are. And if the idea is in the same wheelhouse, isn’t that good for the prospects of your paper? It shows that there’s broad interest in what you’re working on, and it gives you new material to use in refining your own version of the view. If you really think the paper is great, I think it makes sense to shoot for the top.

    Reply
  2. elisa freschi

    I share a similar concern as AE-CP: If you have done serious research for a paper (say, on free will), the fact that someone shares its conclusions will not detract to the logical argumentation (e.g., considering the phenomenology of free will), preliminary historical investigations (e.g., on similar ideas in the history of philosophy) and epistemological foundation (e.g., discussion of the reliability of the data you use, of possible biases, etc.) of the whole thing.
    Nonetheless, I see that waiting for 2 years and possibly being rejected is a high price!

    Reply
  3. jmugg

    Suppose that you do get scooped. Ought you not continue trying to publish that paper? I had some ideas for arguing against Tamar Gendler’s ‘alief’, but then a paper came out basically giving them. So I dropped the idea of writing up the paper.
    To my surprise, two or three more papers have come out making very similar arguments. So maybe even if you do get scooped it is OK to try to publish elsewhere. I think this fits with a question we have talked about before: if a small time philosopher publishes a really good argument against a big name philosopher, is the big name philosopher obligated to work out a reply? If several philosophers publish similar arguments against big philosopher’s position, then it increases the likelihood that the big philosopher does have an obligation to reply.

    Reply
  4. Kyle Whyte

    There’s a difference too depending on whether you’re (1) on the market for a tenure system job and (2) in a tenure system job trying to get tenure. In (1), Marcus, didn’t you have some interesting data you compiled last year about what journals people generally were publishing in who got tenure system jobs? I can’t remember the conclusions that were drawn from that. In (2), I think there is a still dilemma. One answer is that one should publish in journals that are deemed acceptable for tenure in the department. However, if one’s career goals are to move on to somewhere else, then one might have to consider publishing in better journals. But then maybe publishing in those better journals will take too long while the tenure clock winds down.

    Reply
  5. Justin Caouette

    Thanks for the post, Marcus. I share similar worries but for slightly different reasons. As a grad student at a non-Leiter ranked program (though ranked in my AOS area) I find it pertinent to get published to secure employment, however, the longer turn-around times at the top are deterring. Given that I will likely be on the market this time next year I will be cutting it quite close if I get rejected and I am forced to resubmit to another journal before my dossier gets sent off to prospective employers.
    So, I’m leaning to lower ranked journals with quick turn around time. Then again, I do think that one top journal pub is better than 2 lower ranked journal pubs. Ahhhh….

    Reply
  6. Scott Clifton

    I have faced the same dilemma, but more for reasons reflected in Kyle’s and Justin’s posts. The need to have peer-reviewed publications on the CV for the job market is more pressing to me than being scooped–even more so, I think than the tenure clock. Unless you’ve been trying to publish since your third or fourth year in graduate school, you have to get several papers published in the space of just a couple of years. Having them rattle around the top-tier journals for months is generally a gamble that I haven’t been willing to make, since losing there is losing big–no significant pubs in peer-reviewed journals–even if winning is winning big. But I also have doubts about the peer-review process at some of the top journals, so I worry that it’s not a fair gamble even at that.

    Reply
  7. Marcus Arvan

    Thanks for the comments, everyone!
    AE-CP: I think it’s much more common than you seem to think. It has happened to me at least a handful of times where someone has published (more or less) exactly the argument I was working on. In some cases (a run-of-the-mill paper) that’s not so bad. However, if it’s a “big idea” — one that might make a big contribution to the discipline — it can be disastrous.
    AE-CP, Elisa, & JMugg: granted, sometimes multiple people publish similar papers, but surely it’s true that once a paper or two has been published on something, reviewers are likely to think the point is “old hat.” In other words, if the paper bounces around for too long, you might get scooped not just by one or two people, but a handful!
    Kyle: yes, and the surprising thing was that there didn’t seem to be a big difference in terms of getting jobs (people with only non-top-20 pubs didn’t seem to do markedly worse than people with top-20 pubs). This is one of the reasons I’ve steered away from only shooting for top journals!
    Justin and Scott: that is of course part of the dilemma as well! I face it all the time. Sending stuff to top journals seems a pretty bad “bet” all around for someone in our position. The turnaround time, probability of rejection, and probability of getting scooped, all stand against it. That being said, actually getting an acceptance at a top place is like a winning lottery ticket. Hence, the dilemma!

    Reply
  8. Cecil Burrow

    So the idea of this paper is good enough that a referee is likely to steal it, but yet if it appears in a less than top tier journal you are worried that it will be completely ignored?

    Reply
  9. Marcus Arvan

    Cecil: nobody said anything about referees stealing ideas! The claim was merely that if a paper bounces around journals for a while, somebody may publish the same idea first. I take it this can happen even if the paper is good.
    Also, your remarks seem to suggest that if an idea is really good, it will automatically get accepted at a great journal. But this is really implausible. Consider Chalmers’ and Clark’s famous paper in Analysis on the extended mind. They’ve been open about it being rejected at several top journals, including Phil Review (which takes an average of 4-6 months to review paper) and Mind (which takes well over a year on average). Even great papers can bounce around for a good long time, making getting scooped more likely!

    Reply
  10. Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa

    I think the best way to keep from being scooped is to get on the record with your ideas as early as possible. Long before publishing an idea — years, maybe — I’ll blog about it or present it at a conference.

    Reply
  11. Marcus Arvan

    Jonathan: interesting, but doesn’t that perhaps heighten the chance that someone will inadvertently co-opt the idea? Again, I don’t mean outright theft; but what about if someone reads the idea(s), forgets later on — months or a year or two down the read — that they read about it, and then writes it up. I don’t know if this happens often, but it is a worry, no?

    Reply
  12. Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa

    It’s no more risky than publishing, in this respect.

    Reply
  13. Clement

    Use the threat of getting scooped as a motivation to finish/revise papers. Thinking about the possibility greatly helps in overcoming procrastination. But, then, send to the best journal you can.

    Reply
  14. Rachel

    Honestly, very few people have to publish in top journals. Most departments see very little distinction between “top” journals and the rest. Also, most papers that land in top journals won’t be read–unless they’re good. Good papers get noticed pretty much no matter where they’re published.
    I really don’t know how likely getting scooped is. The only experience I had with it involved my putting in a footnote to show how my view is sufficiently different from the other paper.
    What’s a “good publishing reputation”? More importantly, why does it matter?

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Cecil BurrowCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading