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

How should “handbook” chapters (etc.) differ from journal articles?

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

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on how a handbook article should (or could?) look different to a paper published in a journal? Or even whether people feel that one should write differently for edited volumes than for journals?

I've heard people make passing comments suggesting that something different is expected. But I'm not entirely sure what the difference should be.

I think the obvious difference here is that handbook pieces should focus more on providing an overview of the literature on a topic than original argumentation. However, having written one myself, one may also be expected to provide an "opinionated" survey of the area one is writing on, which may permit more in the way of original argument than, say, an encyclopedia entry. As for edited volumes, I don't get the sense that they do (or should) differ much from journal articles. 

What do readers think?

Posted in

5 responses to “How should “handbook” chapters (etc.) differ from journal articles?”

  1. B

    Like Marcus, I think these should include a significant review of the literature. It cannot possibly be comprehensive, because they usually come with very strict word limits (5000-6000 words). But you should give the reader a lay of the land, key positions, and important developments. I have written about 5 or so of these for Routledge volumes. Sometimes, as Marcus, says, you are encouraged to be forthright about your own view (“opinionated”). But think of who your audience is. Usually, with these, it is advanced undergrads, grad students working in the area, or faculty who want to find out what is happening in an area they do not usually work in (but they may have to teach the topic).

    Reply
  2. Tim O’Keefe

    Marcus and ‘B’ are exactly right–handbook etc. chapters have a different purpose and audience than your typical journal article. But (as they also said) these pieces can still be opportunities to make some contribution to advancing the literature in a way that would be useful for specialists in the field too. Sometimes this advancement can be arguing for particular theses that are contested ion the field, but it can also be an original way of framing some topic and how you should think of what’s going on with it.

    Reply
  3. Shen-yi Liao

    I think of handbook articles as (short) “opinionated overviews” like Philosophy Compass articles.

    Reply
  4. Tim

    I’ve written a few handbook entries. I agree with what’s said about above: they should spend more time overviewing positions and disputes than journal articles. Those entries are frequently used for graduate students or scholars looking for overviews or branching out.
    I think both journal articles and handbook entries can be opinionated, but primarily in different ways. In a journal article, I’ll spend a lot more time giving my own opinion about specific disputes and moves in the literature. But in a handbook entry, I might express my opinion more by what disputes and exchanges I cover and to what degree I cover them. For instance, I might think that a certain objection is decisive for a particular view. In a journal article, I might defend that objection by considering responses to that decisive objection. But in a handbook entry, I might just mention the objection that I regard as decisive, without going into the potential responses to it.

    Reply
  5. Handbook Editor

    I think it depends on the handbook. What’s been said above is a reasonable default, I think. But some handbooks, like the one I just put together with some people, specifically encourage authors to make contributions that advance the debate. Indeed, this was supposed to be one of the selling points of this particular handbook (was that wrong?). A bunch of authors, myself included, chose to write what might pass for new journal articles on the topic — albeit written accessibly for outsiders and summarizing the debate up to now.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Tim O’KeefeCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading