In our new "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
When publishing for the job market, do I really need to try and publish at least one article in a top generalist journal? Or will publishing in specialty journals be enough?
What do readers think?
I’ve heard different stories. But here are some possibilities that seem plausible enough.
Having a pub in top 4/5 leiterific would be awesome, probably says a lot more than multiple pubs in 6-20s in combination. My supervisor told me that it’s like metals: one gold trumps multiple silvers. That being said, I had 0 top 4/5s, and had 21 interviews over the past 5 years.
(One caveat is that very few of those interviews turned into offers. Like my interview success rate is super low. My fellow grads who had top 4/5 had significantly easier times on the market.)
One possible explanation is that some of my non-top pubs were really good. And, well, there are people who don’t all believe in “just top 4/5.” But I think that’s also because one of those pubs had a lot of uptake, like over 50 citations in just a few years. But who knows.
And top specialist journals can be on par with top 4/5, at east I think they can.
Short answer: you can get a job just fine publishing only in speciality journals.
Longer answer: see short answer, but it can depend on the type of job and the field you work in. Many jobs–most jobs, in fact–are going to be in more teaching-focused institutions. At such places, they want to make sure that the person they hire will meet their standards in research for getting tenured. But as long as the person is publishing in reputable peer-reviewed places, and at a good enough rate (depending on their career stage/time out from PhD) for the hiring institution, they’re not going to care if the publications are in generalist or specialist journals. (Again, as long as they’re reputable.)
But what about places that put a lot more emphasis on research? Well, then it depends on the field you’re working in, and the types of publications you’re producing. Then the question becomes, “what are the journals that are the most important/reputable/prominent for people working in that field?” I work in ancient philosophy, and as far as my journal articles go, I have published exclusively in ancient speciality journals. This was no bar to my getting hired at an R1 place six years after getting my PhD, and while this was a long time ago, I’m pretty confident the same would apply now.
That’s because, within ancient philosophy, publishing in a speciality journal like Phronesis or Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy is considered about as good as it gets, so nobody who knows the field will ask “Why isn’t this person getting any publications in Nous or PPR?” (Also, the sorts of articles I write are aimed at specialists in the field, who are looking at places like Phronesis, so it wouldn’t have made any sense for me to send my niche paper on whether Epicurus needs the atomic swerve as a starting-point for collisions to PPR rather than Phronesis.)
This might not be true for some areas of philosophy, where the most prominent venues will be high-tier generalist journals. But even there, it depends on the type of paper it is, whether it would be more suitable for a generalist or specialist journal. And-to circle back to my earlier point-most places aren’t going to be concerned about getting into top-tier generalist journals anyway. (And I see no reason why anybody anywhere should think it’s necessary to publish in OK generalist journals rather than well-regarded specialist journals.)
It depends on your area.
Here are a few examples. In epistemology, publishing in the speciality journals often means the work probably wasn’t good enough to publish in generalist journals (e.g. Episteme, Logos and Episteme, Social Epistemology). In ancient philosophy, publishing in the speciality journals is normal, and my understanding is that it is more difficult (e.g. Phronesis, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy). In philosophy of science, publishing in speciality journals is similarly more normal (especially if it isn’t physics-related). In ethics, well, it depends on the journal. Publishing in the journal Ethics is different from publishing in the Journal of Value Inquiry.
This probably depends on your subfield. If you are in a niche field, then, yes, its probably good to publish in generalist journals to show you can speak in a really sophisticated way to the top people in your field. Same (maybe) if your work is so technical that a lot of your potential colleagues won’t really track it clearly or see its significance. But if you are in a big field seen as core to the field, I think you can do just as well with speciality journals. (Lots of political philosophers and ethicists seem to do just fine just publishing in things like Ethics, Old PPA/new Free and Equal and suchlike.
In philosophy of science, publishing in the top specialty journals is just fine – I am thinking here of Philosophy of Science and BJPS. These journals are highly regarded, and they are even recognized by philosophers working in other areas. Incidentally, two papers I have published in Phil Sci are cited more than the paper I published in Nous (by a long shot).
I’ve not been on any hiring committees, so take this with a grain of salt, but in general I’ve seen several questions around issues of the sort: how does doing just x, as opposed to both x and y, look on the job market, where x and y are both good things? In general, it strikes me that this would be a disadvantage relative to candidates that demonstrated the ability to do both. Of course, whether just doing x would be enough depends on the overall pool of candidates and your total application, so it’s impossible to say in advance.
The answer here will probably depend on many factors, including the subfield, how many publications one has, but most importantly the kinds of jobs you are competitive for. For the non-R1 jobs that most of us get, a couple of specialist publications would be plenty.
I would be willing to bet that the top 5 journals don’t publish enough papers in a year for everyone on the market to have a publication there, even without considering the people who already have jobs who are also trying to publish there. (According to PJIP.org, the number of papers per year published in these journals: Phil Rev = 10, Nous = 43, Phil Imprint = 31, J Phil = 16, PPR = 84.)
It is really weird that Philosophy, of all disciplines, plays so much attention to rankings (of departments, journals, etc.). If a journal has a 2 or 10% acceptance rate, the papers that just miss the cut there are not going to be noticeably different in quality from the ones that do get accepted, even though they will ultimately be published in a journal with a (slightly) higher acceptance rate. Using journal rankings as a way to judge the quality of a paper is a very unphilosophical thing to do, and we should stop perpetuating it.
I broadly agree with Depends above. “Specialty journals” can mean lots of different things, depending on how broad your specialty is. Philosophy of Science, for example, is technically a specialty journal, but it’s also broad enough in scope and reputable enough that I think a publication there basically do the same work for you as a pub in a more generalist journal. That likely won’t be the case for a narrower specialty (e.g. a pub in a journal specifically on the philosophy of biology may not be considered as valuable, even if the journal is very good).
I’m currently on the philosophy job market and wanted to share my experience. I’ve got quite a few publications under my belt, mostly in leading tech/AI specialty journals, plus what people tell me is a pretty solid CV overall. Here’s the thing though – I’ve made it to several Zoom interviews and even two campus visits, but no offers. The feedback I keep getting (from committee members and people in the know) all points to the same thing: I’m not making the final cut because I don’t have any publications in those top 5-10 general philosophy journals. Just to be clear – I haven’t heard back from every place I interviewed with on Zoom, but I’ve gotten this consistent feedback from quite a few of them, which makes up a good chunk of my total interviews.
So .. I’d say that those top general philosophy journals matter. A LOT. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. We like to think philosophy as a field has evolved past this, but honestly? It hasn’t. The same old prestige biases are alive and well in our discipline; I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Yes, you should try to publish in both!
I say that not because I think that publishing in a top generalist journal is the not-so-secret-sign that will open all the doors of TT jobs for you; I agree with those above who say the details of the journal and subfield determine how much splash value a particular publication has (if you are in value theory, I highly doubt you will be hurt on the market by “just” having several publications in Ethics, for example).
But the reason why it is important to strive to publish in a top generalist journal is because putting in the work to conceive and craft the type of article that could possibly be accepted at a top generalist journal will likely make you a better philosopher. The types of articles published in top generalist journals are often different in kind than the types of articles published in many specialist journals. Being a graduate student is a great time to try to challenge oneself in this way. Of course, you should also be sending work to specialist journals (and lower ranked generalist journals) at the same time.
As a great philosopher, Robert Smith, once said:
It’s never enough
I’ve been meaning to post some general points about publications in the job market, gathered from both my experience from searches at my PhD granting institution (tippy-top), my current job (good R1), and conversations with many others. They concern not just this question, but others that have been posed in this blog. I have time today, so I gather them here.
Like all general points there are exceptions, and it’s possible the points below apply only to R1s or a subset of them (I note some important exceptions at the end):
1. AMOUNT OF PUBS
(1.1) It is almost impossible to get a job with no publications in the current job market.
(1.2) One publication makes a huge difference: it shows you know what it takes to publish.
(1.3) A second pub adds some value to an app, but not nearly as much as the first.
(1.4) The value after 2 diminishes a lot. Almost no one will care about the difference between 2 vs. 3, 4, 5…
(1.4.1) However, more pubs may be expected the longer after your Ph.D, especially if you’re in a long postdoc with fewer duties. This shows you’re research active.
JOURNAL QUALITY OF PUB
(2.1) Top 5 generalist adds a lot of value, and a pub in Phil Review is (for better or worse) almost in its own tier.
(2.2) Top 10ish adds significant value.
(2.3) Top 25ish adds some value.
(2.4) Not recognized journals don’t add much (if any) value (and might add disvalue if someone suspects you’re just publishing for the sake of it wherever a piece will be taken (e.g. journals that even bad writing samples for our graduate program are published in). But I note that there are several generalist journals that aren’t part of the top 25 that don’t add disvalue. Check with your advisor).
(2.5) Different subfields will evaluate the value of generalist vs. specialized differently. Some exs.:
-ETHICS: A pub in Ethics is roughly equivalent to (2.1).
-EPISTEMOLOGY: No specialized journal compares to (2.1-2.3).
-PHIL OF SCIENCE: A pub in ‘Phil of Science’ is roughly equivalent to one in (2.2).
-MIND/LANGUGAGE: A pub in ‘Mind and Language’ is roughly equivalent to (2.3).
-EARLY MODERN: A pub in JHP is roughly equivalent to (2.1), and one in Oxford Studies in EM to (2.3).
-ANCIENT G&R: A pub in OSAP or Phronesis is roughly equivalent to (2.1) (perhaps OSAP a bit like Phil Review); one in Apeiron to (2.3).
So, huge divergence between fields, and the best thing to do is to check with trusted specialists (e.g. your advisor, when you’re starting to submit).
3. BEYOND PUB VENUE
(3.1) Pub venues open doors: e.g., it may be that the above criteria get used to syphon applications early.
(3.2) After the initial rounds, dept committees will read the work very carefully. At this point pub venues often cease to matter much. What matters is the quality of the piece. A department might judge that a piece in (2.3) or an unpublished piece (e.g. a dissertation ch.), is better than something published in (2.1).
[3.2.1. Sometimes people complain that someone with one or no pubs gets an amazing job. Look back a few years later to some of these people, and you’ll see that in most cases they have published their work in excellent journals. Depts were able to see the quality there.]
(3.3) Departments vary about the weight they assign to on-campus visits. Some departments (like my Ph.D granting institution), give a lot of weight to it. Some give very little weight to it, and may use it more to assess things like personal fit (Is the person an a-hole? Are they a flight risk? etc.).
(3.4) Fit is HUGE. Sometimes job ads don’t express fully what a department is really looking for (sometimes for legal reasons). And often there will be several excellent candidates. Sometimes the decision between them just comes down to who addresses those hidden needs better.
SOME NOTEWORTHY EXCEPTIONS
(4.1) LITTLE WEIGHT TO PUBS: Different departments give more or less weight to pubs in earlier and later rounds. I’ve heard of one top department that apparently doesn’t even look at cv’s (I believe it because they have more than once hired people with no publication record. If your first inclination is to complain, at least consider 3.2.1).
(4.2) HUGE WEIGHT ON PUBS: Other departments may continue to use pub quality even in later rounds, as someone reports above happening with a dept that won’t hire with no pubs in (2.2).
(4.3) A professor in a top Ph.D program described the difference between (4.1) and (4.2) as one of lack of confidence in their own assessments. I’m inclined to agree. Tippy-top departments typically fall closer to (4.1). But since there’s a correlation between quality of work and quality of pub, it’s often hard to tell from the outside.
(4.4) WITHIN DEPT DIFFERENCES: Even within a single dept there will be disagreements about how much value to give to any of this. That introduces significant randomness just in virtue of who is in the search committee, or (e.g.,) not on sabbatical.
5. MY ADVICE, BASED ON ALL THIS
(5.1) If you want a job at an R1, you should aim to have at least one pub in (2.1-2) or equivalent (and ideally two pubs) by the time you apply.
(5.2) Since such a pub will likely be your writing sample (and, even if not, will get read), you should spend a lot of effort making sure this Is the best philosophical work you can produce within this timeline. Indeed, best to have a single amazing pub than two good ones.
(5.3) I wouldn’t put much effort in publishing beyond two unless you’ve moved on to a post-Ph.D position. That effort is better spent in pursuing a cool idea that deserves to be published in (2.1-2), and that might serve as your job talk if you get invited, and as a focus point for your zoom interviews.
@R1 Assistant Prof thank you for collecting and writing out all those observations! This may not be something you’ve collected info on, but do you have a general sense of how many publications one ought to have in these scenarios if they are a few years out from a PhD? Is ~1 pub per years out typically enough?
@Journal: one explanation is that Tech/AI specialty journals (I have in mind: Phil & Tech, Minds and Machines, AI & Society) are only now starting to be recognized as ‘good’ journals by people who do not know much about phil tech & AI. It is unfortunate, because getting a publication in Phil & Tech is almost as hard as getting one in Phil Sc, and the quality of papers is quite high. This could explain the feedback you have received.
My comment is based on a lot of experience in publishing in top phil sc journals, top phil bio journals (which are almost unknown to philosophers of other specialties), and Phil Tech & AI journals. I have no publications in generalist journals (unless you consider Synthese one of those), and I did pretty well on the job market (and even though it took me awhile to get a permanent job, I was capable of landing pretty prestigious postdocs). My impression is that what made a real difference in my case was BJPS or Phil Sci (widely known also by philosophers of rather different specialties), rather than Biology & Philosophy or Philosophy & Technology
@E.R. Do you have some evidence that you could give the rest of us about the Phil & Tech acceptance rates? I ask this not to challenge but to help with potential future searches etc.
@post-PhD pub counting: I’d say 1/year is a very good rate, because this is a common expectation for tenure at many R1s (though this varies a lot: some expect more; some expect books). However, committees know that the process is random: one year with no pubs can still be a research-active year; but it would look weird if you had a 3-year postdoc with no pubs.
Context matters in ways that could be made known in the application (either by the candidate or letter writers): two pubs from someone in a postdoc with regular teaching duties will all things equal look better than two from someone in a research-only postdoc. The former has shown that they can produce research at a good pace even under a mostly regular schedule. A pub from someone who had a kid that year similarly counts for more.
And, as someone pointed out above, a pub in a top-5 over three years might look better than three in other journals.
Thanks for this very nice compilation R1 Assistant Prof! This all matches my experience (context: got my PhD from a Leiter top-50 US uni, currently employed at a research-intensive uni in the UK).
One additional observation on points 4.1-4.2: both of these can be true at the same time to an extent. At both my PhD-granting institution and my current job, the vibe is very much 4.1, i.e., research is read very carefully by the faculty, we form our own judgment, and once we have done so what’s on the CV is more or less irrelevant. BUT, we only read stuff carefully after we’ve cut the applicants down to a manageable number, and CV more or less solely determines that initial cut. And at that initial stage all of what R1 Assistant Prof wrote under points 1 or 2 rings true to me (descriptively at least, I’m not taking a view here on whether this is a good way of doing things). So the sense in which both 4.1 and 4.2 are true: you will almost certainly be ruled out for not having any pubs or not having any pubs in ‘good’ venues, but also it’s not even approximately true that we tend to hire the person with the strongest CV.
Leave a Reply