In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, confusedgradstudent writes:
The participants at a paper workshop suggested I send in my paper as a response piece. They also noted that response pieces are 'easier to get in.'
My paper responds to a problem that is associated with a particular philosopher, so I suppose that this shouldn't be too hard. But, how would I go about framing the paper as a response piece? Do I do this merely to flag to the editor that this paper is a response piece? Also, is it true that response papers are easier to get published?
Excellent questions. In my experience, publishing replies (sometimes also called 'discussion notes') is a great way for early career philosophers to start publishing. My first two publications were both replies, and they helped me learn the publishing ropes, as it were. There are several nice things about replies:
- They are normally quite short (2,000-3,000 words or so).
- They are easier and quicker to write than longer standalone papers.
- They may be a bit easier to get published, as referees and editors may use different standards of acceptance.
- Having a significant publishing record looks good on the job market.
The only real (though significant) downsides to publishing replies, I think, are these:
- Although a few journals accept replies to papers in other journals, most journals don't.
- If your reply is rejected at the journal that published the original paper, you may only have two options:
- Give up on publishing the paper (which stinks!)
- Try to convert it into a longer standalone piece (which can be tough!).
- Replies may not be conferred as much value in hiring and tenure decisions as standalone articles.
- They may make less of an impact in the literature (viz. citations) than standalone articles.
Bearing these pros and cons in mind, is publishing replies worth it? I do think so, especially for grad students and early-career PhDs–provided one also tries to publish longer papers, as well. In my case, I initially struggled publishing full-length papers, which was depressing and stressful (I had a number of R&R's on full length papers in grad school, but messed them all up). Both of the replies I wrote came quickly, and it was so nice to finally get a few lines in the 'publishing' section of my CV.
Anyway, to finally answer the OP's questions:
- How do you frame replies?: Easy, I think my two papers are decent models. Have a very concise introduction that clearly targets a particular work and argument. Then provide a brief exegesis of the target argument. Then justify your objection to it. You're done!
- Do I … flag to the editor that this paper is a response piece?: Normally yes. Usually, journal submission systems will ask you what 'type' of submission you are making, and you will have the option of selecting between things like 'original article', 'discussion note', etc. You may also title your paper in a way that makes it clear that it is a reply (which both of my replies do).
- Are replies easier to get published?: My sense is 'yes', but this is admittedly anecdotal. It might be good to hear from referees and editors here. First, do you use the same standards for evaluating replies? Second, irrespective of your answer to that question, do you think it is easier for authors to write good replies than longer articles (simply because replies are shorter and less ambitious)? Third (for editors), do you have any acceptance statistics you might share to give us an idea whether acceptance rates differ substantially for replies compared to full articles?
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. It would be great to hear from other readers who have published replies, as well as from referees and editors (particularly for the final sets of questions above). What do you all think?
Leave a Reply to stmCancel reply