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

Peer review and special journal issues: should early-career people publish in them?

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

When a journal does a topical special issue volume with guest editors, do those editors tend to do R&Rs like an ordinary journal submission, or are they more likely to simply accept or reject? I realize this will probably differ depending on the SI in question, but I am just trying to get a sense of what the process is like before I submit to one for the first time. Do acceptances/rejections tend to happen faster than the usual rate at that journal? Or are they slower/the same?

Relatedly, as an early career person with a real need for more publications, how do special issue pubs look on a CV to search committees? I take it that they aren't as highly valued as ordinary journal publications, but how much lower are we talking? Is it even worth submitting to them if you're early career with minimal publications?

These are all excellent questions. I don't know all that much about exactly how much the peer-review process for special journal issues differs from standard journal submissions, including whether acceptances/rejections tend to happen more quickly for the former. However, I do know that R&Rs happen (I've had some myself), and my (admittedly anecdotal) sense is that when it comes to invited submissions to special issues or edited volumes, there may be some presumption in favor of publication (whereas there is no such presumption for normal, non-invited submissions), and of course the editor for the special issue will know who you are, so the peer-review process won't be triple-anonymized.

In terms of how publications in special issues look to search committees, this is a tough one. A big part of the problem is that a search committee really doesn't know exactly what (or how rigorous) the peer-review process was. My sense is that (rightly or wrongly) some people may suspect that inclusion in a special issue may be at least as much about having good professional connections as it is about the quality of one's work–and this concern might be especially salient if it's an early-career person (and job candidate) who hasn't otherwise published much via the standard in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, I've definitely heard this kind of concern voiced before: that it's hard to know what to make of a candidate with a bunch of invited/special publications but few (or no) standard journal publications.

So, my sense (though it could be wrong) is that if you've published fairly well in peer-reviewed journals already the standard way, then publishing in special issues is probably just fine (and perhaps even a positive)–but that if you have "minimal publications" (like OP states), then submitting to special issues may not be the best way to go. It may make more sense to build up your CV with standard journal publications first.

Then again, perhaps a lot depends on the quality of the journal (e.g. is a special issue of Mind?), and perhaps I'm wrong and  special issue publications look good to some search committees (perhaps at institutions where perceived reputation matters?). Anyway, not sure. What do you all think? It would be great to hear more both about the publication process for special issues, as well as how search committees perceive/weigh such publications.

Posted in , ,

5 responses to “Peer review and special journal issues: should early-career people publish in them?”

  1. Joona Räsänen

    I have edited a few special issues. All the papers for them went through normal peer-review process. The only real difference was that it was the guest editor who selected referees etc. Revisions were required and so on. But since there is usually a clear deadline to get the issue ready, multiple rounds of revisions might not be allowed. Also, the guest editor might check the revised paper herself rather than sending it back to referees to save some time.
    If you are worried that people don’t think publications in special issues are “real publications” there is no need to mention in your CV/list of publications that the paper was part of a special issue.

    Reply
  2. Michel

    Ten-plus years ago, it was common for CVs to indicate special issue publications as such. As far as I can see, nobody does so any more. My sense is that it used to be common for special issues to be composed of invited pieces reviewed primarily by the editors rather than going through anonymized peer review, whereas now they pretty much all seem to consist of anonymized submissions that go through a regular review process (plus editorial review–I tend to get three sets of reports).
    So: I don’t see a good reason to mark it out as a special issue publication, or for committees to discount it.
    On the practical side, I have two special issue pubs and am sitting on one R&R (and have several planned for the near future). One of the pubs was a conditional acceptance, the other an R&R. I wouldn’t say reports were faster, but for 2/3 they were timelier–the deadlines for the editors meant the review process couldn’t drag on forever.
    The main advantage, as I see it, is that the journal has committed to publishing several papers on a single theme in a single issue. So your paper isn’t competing with hundreds of others, all on different topics; it’s competing against a dozen or two for one of five or so slots. (Otherwise, the journal might take a year or more to publish that many papers on the topic (or it might almost never do so!) and your timing for your submission might just tip the scales against you.)
    So: I think that looking out for special issues is a fine way to build your CV. (If nothing else, it’s a way of gleaning paper ideas. But when I submit to one, I figure that I’m increasing my odds of publication from very low to moderate, simply because the journal is committed to publishing on the topic. Since I work in an area that’s very poorly represented in top generalist venues, that’s a big boon.)

    Reply
  3. Helen

    Concurring with the second commenter–Earlier versions of my CV painstakingly marked special issues as such. Now, I don’t do it anymore. For one thing it’s impossible to discern how rigorous peer review was (this varies a lot between special issues). Even being invited is not a guarantee for publication: I’ve sent a paper to a special issue once that got a negative referee report and thus a rejection. I resubmitted it to another journal, and it’s (for the time of publication) already very well cited. It has not only been cited but also discussed as an explicit position in the literature. The first referee didn’t like it, but that doesn’t mean the paper is bad. A lot of refereeing is down to luck. So, in my view as a midcareer scholar, the proof of a paper lies not so much in whether it survives the capricious process of peer-review but on its subsequent uptake. A more prestigious venue might make it more likely the uptake will be bigger. But I’ve noticed that papers I only was able to place in specialist or less prestigious (but still reputable) journals do often just as well, if not better.
    Special issue papers are a way to get things out there. It is sometimes the case that the process of vetting is a bit lighter, but even then, editors will make sure that there is a vetting process in place. To me, special issues help you to get things out. The ultimate proof of papers lies more in their uptake and subsequent discussion than in the initial vetting, in my view (where there is always some luck involved. Of course, luck plays at any stage). I’d say, go for it!

    Reply
  4. PhilyOsopher

    Journals that run special issues are increasingly cognizant that these can be seen as an ‘easy’ route into the journal (and maybe they once were). As a result, editors increasingly subject special issue manuscripts, whether invited or via open CFP, to standard peer-review process. Given this, I don’t see why it is important to flag that a publication is for a special issue, since people do seem to make incorrect assumptions about ease of publication in these.

    Reply
  5. moderately experienced researcher

    This is an interesting question. My thought is that publishing in special issues is easier than in regular issues.
    Normally you need to convince the editors that the research on topic X is interesting. Then, the paper goes for an external review and editors quite frequently just look for an excuse to throw the paper into the bin. Special issue editors seem to operate differently: they have some knowledge of topic X, and they have a positive attitude towards the topic, they want it to be promoted, and developed. So, they may be more inclined to appoint better reviewers and more inclined to order R&R verdicts.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to moderately experienced researcherCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading