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

I am a second year PhD student wondering what the ideal timeline should be for publishing. I plan to be on the market my fifth year, and I know that it takes months (years?!) from first round submissions to having a publication accepted. If my goal is to have 3-4 publications, what's the best way to realistically achieve this?

I have one paper that my advisors agree is basically ready to submit to solid journals, and a second that should be ready in the fall. I am hoping to start drafting a third paper this summer, with the hopes of getting that sent out to journals about a year later (after conference submissions, etc.). Is this too slow? Are there other timelines or strategies that have worked best for other people while balancing other grad school duties?

Good questions. My sense is that if you want 3-4 publications three years from now, you probably need to get a bunch of stuff out to journals as soon as you can. Remember, rejection rates at many journals are upwards of 90%, and just the initial review stage can take anywhere from 3-4 months to 6 months or longer (which, obviously, doesn't include revise-and-resubmits). Publishing a paper can take a long time, particularly if you've never done it before. At the same time, there are some dangers to sending things out too soon. As one reader wrote in a reply:

One quick response to PhD Student on publishing timelines: a mistake I made a few times as a PhD was to send off papers 'too early' while trying to get some publications in. But ultimately this just delayed the process, because those papers were inevitably rejected after a few months and then had to be sent off again. It sounds like you already have a good system in place to avoid this, namely getting a second pair of eyes e.g. your supervisor, and making sure to present your papers at conferences at least a few times before you submit them. I definitely don't think this is too slow!

I had a similar experience in grad school, which was I think the result of me not getting enough "eyes" on my papers before sending them out. So, I guess this is my suggestion: try to send papers off as soon as you reasonably can–but work closely with faculty in your program to make sure the papers are in good shape before you do! But these are just my thoughts.

What does everyone else think?

Posted in ,

7 responses to “Ideal timeline for publishing in grad school?”

  1. I think one thing to remember is that journals have submission quotas, e.g. you can send one paper to Phil Review per year, twice to JPhil etc. So try to learn from any type of feedback from the journal, be it a desk rejection, unfavorable comments etc.

  2. cecil burrow

    Your goal should not be to have 3-4 papers. They will not be good, and they will not help you the way you think they will. Have 1 or at most 2 really excellent publications instead.

  3. Not the right way to think about grad school

    Each year, for years 2-4 of grad school, send a paper to Phil Review. If you’re any good, that means you’ll go on the market with three papers published (or forthcoming). That’s the best strategy.

  4. There is a nice document by Hanti Lin outlining the kind of timeline I think OP is looking for: https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/128nK28AQlH_XJEzLQmKtzCGmOHRjE0KsWxk3Fui98lU/mobilebasic?pli=1
    I do share some of the concerns mentioned here. It might be worth adding: very few people actually complete grad school in 5 years (I certainly didn’t). A large part of that is the “bucket list” that is typically expected, which includes publications, but also teaching experience and ideally some other “service”-type activities.

  5. Anon TT

    Keep 2-4 papers (or more) continually under review at least by end of your third semester. Or go to a Leiter Report top 5 and try for 2-3 total superb publications.

  6. Derek Bowman

    If Anon TT’s (and/or “Not the right way…”‘s) advice is good advice, the philosophy profession needs to radically rethink the shape of graduate education. If 3 semesters in grad school is, or ought to be, sufficient to enable the production of 2-4 professional quality articles, then what possible educational purpose could be served by 3 and a half additional years of education?

  7. cecil burrow

    Derek, of course the advice is question is bad advice (and I’m pretty sure, judging by their username, ‘Not the right way to think about grad school’ was being sarcastic …)

Leave a Reply to Not the right way to think about grad schoolCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading