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

Do journals prioritize some submissions?

In most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I'm writing with a sincere question, one that I hope does not sound too paranoid. (Given my situation, I'm quite happy to have my impression corrected!)

Over a year ago, I submitted a paper to a top-ranked journal known for its quick turnaround time (less than a month for a first decision). After receiving no updates about my submission, I reached out six months later. Nothing. After reaching out again two months later (so, eight months after the initial submission), I received a response. The editors apologized for the delay and their response indicated that they had two referee invitations out. I was surprised and disappointed to learn that that was all that had happened in eight months, but oh well, that's academic publishing! Then, four months later, after not finding any clear update in the submission portal, I reached out again. I was told at that point that one referee report had been secured, but that they were still attempting to find a second referee. From the submission portal, I gather that they located a second referee under a month ago. It's been 14 months since my initial submission.

Of course, I've found this frustrating, but I've tried to be patient and understanding, as I know that everyone is overworked, and understand the amount of time and labor that goes into editing and refereeing. (I have two referee reports due currently, so I know this firsthand!)

In any case, here's the thing that bothers me. I have a friend who submitted a paper to this same journal long after I did. Their paper seems to have been reviewed promptly and was published in that journal months ago. That friend is at a Leiter-ranked R1 with a PhD program and graduated from a top PhD program in philosophy; I am at a large public teaching institution with no graduate program and graduated from an unranked PhD program. Although I have no idea how my paper stacks up–I'm bad at getting a sense of this stuff when it comes to my own work, and anyway think it's not always possible to stack papers up against one another–I worry that my submission has been de-prioritized somehow. And I worry that it's because of my relative lack of prestige (a lack of institutional prestige and PhD-granted institution prestige).

Does this sort of thing happen? (I should probably mention that I've successfully published in highly ranked journals before.)

I don't have any inside insight, but I guess I doubt it's likely there's anything untoward going on here. My sense from looking at crowdsourced sites where users report turnaround times is simply that there's a lot of variance on how quickly the same journal reviews pieces. Maybe this is due to difficulty in finding willing referees, or alternatively, from some associate editors simply being far more efficient and conscientious than others (they're the ones who solicit reviewers, right?). 

What do readers think? 

Posted in ,

21 responses to “Do journals prioritize some submissions?”

  1. my sense

    I think it would be very difficult for you to accuse the journal of giving priority to some papers over your paper due to your relatively lower standing (as you describe it). To make such an accusation, you would need some pretty strong evidence. With that in mind, I think you should push such thoughts out of your mind. As Marcus notes, there is a lot of variance in the time manuscripts take to get through refereeing. There are many times and places in an academic career to feel indignation at some injustice. But I do not think this is one of them.

    Reply
  2. Douglas W. Portmore

    I suspect that you’ve just had some bad luck with referees. Unfortunately, sometimes a referee doesn’t submit their report by the deadline that they agreed to. And sometimes they don’t respond (at least, not promptly) to email inquiries regarding when we might expect their late report. And sometimes we have to find another referee or proceed with only one report after repeated attempts to get a report that was promised. Other times, both referees submit their reports early. Also, different papers can have different handling associate editors, and some are faster than others, depending on what’s going on with them at the time. The fact that different papers are assigned different handling editors and have different referees would explain why you and your friend had such different experiences with the same journal. The policies implemented can be the same, but lead to very different results depending on the individuals involved. I really doubt that the explanation is that the journal’s editors prioritize submissions from authors at more prestigious institutions or departments. For one, that would require more work, and editors are not eager to take on more work than necessary. Furthermore, many journals, such as ETHICS, employ a triple-blind review process. The editors at ETHICS learn of a submission’s author if, and only if, it has been accepted for publication. And we learn that only once the decision letter has been sent out to the author.

    Reply
  3. anon

    I agree it’s unlikely this prioritization is going on. Some papers attract reviewers quickly, others don’t.
    But I want to raise another point. Especially if you’re early career, I don’t think you’re obligated to wait as long as you did for as little as you’ve gotten. Waiting 14 months to secure two reviewers is a massive opportunity cost for you to pay, even more so for those without permanent positions.
    Editorial teams are surely overworked, but I think they should also understand that their turnaround times are nonetheless still way too long. So, I think we should dissolve the norm of waiting to reach out to editors until your paper has been with them for 6 months to 1 year, at least if you’re very early-career.

    Reply
  4. delays like this are much too common

    This is also anecdotal, but my PhD is from one of the top Leiter programs and virtually everyone I know has a story about a journal sitting on a paper for an unreasonably long time. I do suspect there are cases where papers (thought to be) authored by super famous people might get priority (whether intentionally or not) by editors or conference committees, but I doubt that your affiliation makes any difference among everyone else. Long delays like the one you described can be caused by genuine difficulty finding a person to review, which sometimes has to do with the paper being on a less common subject or using a less common methodology. But I’ve personally also had multiple instances of papers just getting lost/sat on at late stages of the pipeline and had to email editors to be like “hey did you forget this paper exists.” I currently have a situation like that where the editor is simply not responding to messages from anyone (according to multiple sources) which is frustrating but also clearly not directed at anyone personally.
    FWIW, about reported fast turnaround times, my guess is that this can be influenced by high rates of desk rejections especially from top journals. There is no chance of getting a response within a month if your paper actually goes out to referees, so average turnaround in under a month means that a great majority of submissions are desk rejected. Of course it’s still good for journals to be issuing desk rejections quickly.
    Anyway, my sympathies about your situation and I hope you get a quick decision once the referee reports come back!

    Reply
  5. Good nepo babies

    too many factors to explain, but here’s one possible causal explanation
    your friend – graduated from R1, top PhD program – has gotten better, i.e., the right kind of training. that is, they (a) have been taught how to introduce the relevant literature in the right way, and to ‘tag’ the right kind of people; and (b) they make the kind of moves that would, by and large, receive a sympathetic or understanding audience. And the reviewers, by and large, at top journals are going to be the same people taught in the same traditions. So when they submit a paper, they’re more likely to get someone who can both read it and understand its significance without too much difficulty [this is not describing a nepotistic scenario – just the broader sociological factors that might explain].
    You, on the other hand, are kind of out of the loop a bit. So your paper might only tag one or two of the relevant players; and your paper might make a novel move that, while novel, strikes the gatekeepers as unorthodox. So they need to sit down and spend more time ‘assessing’ the paper. And with that comes greater scrutiny.
    There’s more to be said, I think, about why the top journals tend to produce, in general, the same ‘type’ of glossy papers. that’s not a bad thing; good philosophy is good philosophy. But those on the outside looking in might have to do more of the boring work to read through the kinds of papers that get accepted and make sure that you’re kind of ‘doing the things that need to be done’ in order to get accepted. Whether all this is good or bad for philosophy is another matter.

    Reply
  6. Good nepo babies

    just to follow up: so when you worry that “it’s because of my relative lack of prestige (a lack of institutional prestige and PhD-granted institution prestige)” I would be worried. that is, your lack of institutional prestige may be playing a role. But it’s not overt, it’s more implicit, sociological, the way you set up problems, diagnose them, the kind of moves you make, etc.
    I think this is common to virtually all subfields of philosophy, and for the top journals being part of an R1 just makes it more likely that one (a) acquires the skills to be part of the conversation and (b) acquires the meta-skills to be part of moving the conversation forward. Sure, there are always exceptions – but being outside the loop means having to learn (a) and (b) on the fly. That’s just my view from the outside looking in.

    Reply
  7. Kapto

    Going against the grain, as a frequent referee I got the distinct impression that at least two top journals might give preference to certain authors in terms of whom they desk reject (or don’t), and how they interpret letters from reviewers, reading mixed reviews more generously if the author is someone who is already a big shot. Needless to say, this means that in those cases the process is not triple or even double blind; at least some editor somewhere would have to know who the author is through the process. So if a journal has a completely all-around blind review, the suspicion of preferential treatment is probably less warranted.
    Either way, I agree with those above who say there’s no point in changing your behavior in light of this. Except for one thing: make sure not to write in a way that exposes you as an outsider in the relevant subfield, or as an outsider to grown-up professional academia (e.g. phrases like “Being that…” “meaning that” “blah blah blah, however, blah blah blah], “Firsname Lastname thinks that…”).

    Reply
  8. Curious

    I’m very curious if Kapto can please explain why/how the examples they give expose someone as an outsider

    Reply
  9. Slacker

    I publish in two different areas, and I’ve found that I have to wait far longer for verdicts in area A (which is smaller and more niche and more opinionated) than in area B.
    To echo some of the comments above, I think it’s also likely that your more in-the-loop friend writes in a way that appeals to prospective reviewers. (I am far more inclined to accept a review request if I expect to accept the paper… less work. Writing a rejection takes time to do properly.)
    But could your friend also be in the loop about which topics are hot? Topics go through waves of hotness amongst prestigious departments that can fade within a few years. But because journals are so slow, the papers in the wave might not formally appear until the wave is fading.

    Reply
  10. rabbit

    Some people are speculating that the paper by the OP has fewer in-group signals than a paper by an R1 person, and this could influence publications success. This is possible, but can’t explain the type of delay described in the post. Writing style or framing differences might explain getting higher rates of desk rejection or harsher referee reports, but not delays in simply finding a referee to complete the review in a timely manner. I also think it’s unfair to the OP to imply that their writing is somehow less discipline appropriate simply because they were never at a leiterific program. The Phil Gourmet only ranks programs from 5 countries I think, so this way of thinking implies that, for instance, most of the world is somehow out of the loop with respect to philosophy education. I currently work in a country that does not appear in the rankings and my colleagues regularly publish in top journals so I find such thinking clearly problematic.
    Responding to Kapto, I’m genuinely unsure what you think is unusual about the phrases you quoted. Maybe this shows there is great internal diversity within the discipline about how writing styles are viewed. I also think it’s insulting to imply that the OP is an “outsider to grown-up professional academia” when they have the same set of credentials as any other academic researcher.

    Reply
  11. Got me wondering

    Seems like there was discussion on this (or a related one having to do with prestige bias) on another popular philosophy blog, and I recall two broad camps being staked out:
    1) Top tier students are just better: They were selected into top programs, suggesting they were stronger candidates; they have access to the “big players” who can help them network; they have less teaching requirements, so more time to write and shop around for top-notch feedback; etc. The average paper by a Princeton phd student/faculty member is going to be better than the average paper by a non-top school student/faculty member.
    2) Unjustified bias is a main driver of the employment and publishing disparities we see. The halo effect is real: when an editor sees a submission from Princeton, they experience a favorable impression more so than when they see a submission from no-name school. When a fancy R1 seeks to hire someone, they want to hire someone from an equally fancy R1. A student at no-name school may have the same philosophical chomps as students at fancy schools, but their association with the no-name school is going to (implicitly) count against them. Association, not merit, better accounts for the disparities we see in hiring and publishing, not quality.
    I agree with others that I don’t think the OP should worry about differential treatment in this particular case. I do think the OP is right to wonder whether there is a bias–justified or not—against individuals at lower-ranked places when it comes to hiring and publishing.

    Reply
  12. apparently an outsider also

    Just to add on, I would really love to hear from @Kapto about why those particular phrases signal outsider status. Even if it’s idiosyncratic, I think more public discussion of these “tells” can serve as an equalizer for the problems discussed in this thread!

    Reply
  13. Slacker

    @rabbit:

    Writing style or framing differences might explain getting higher rates of desk rejection or harsher referee reports, but not delays in simply finding a referee to complete the review in a timely manner.
    Sure they can. They might influence who an editor asks to review or how much effort they put into chasing them up, they might influence the number of willingness of potential reviewers in the pool, and the timeliness of those reviews (especially since these days a potential reviewer can normally see the first few pages of the text). If the topic is hot the reviewer might be more excited to get to it, etc etc. There are loads of potential mechanisms, some more plausible than others.
    Responding to Kapto, I’m genuinely unsure what you think is unusual about the phrases you quoted.
    Me too!

    Reply
  14. jr

    I’ve often wondered about this issue at the initial desk-reject-or-find-reviewers phase. Since many (most?) journals are not triple-blind, it seems like the most likely point for prestige bias to creep in is in the editor’s initial decision about what merits sending out for review. Some of this might be explained by the features of the writing itself, as Good nepo babies describes. But, as a tenured philosopher at a “no-name” school with a degree from a non-Leiterrific program, I’ve received some desk rejections so quickly that it’s hard to believe an editor even took the time to skim the paper.

    Reply
  15. Citation practices

    This is a side comment, entirely based on my personal experience. I think that one way to help journal editors to find reviewers is, in your manuscript, to cite a mix of people at different career stages. I have the impression that early career people are more eager to accept peer-review invitations: that could help speed up the process in some way, since editors often select reviewers from the works you cite.

    Reply
  16. a bit weird

    The amount of speculation here (lots of which seems insulting to the OP) about something this statistically insignificant is.. pretty weird and I would be annoyed if I were them! To the OP: I think there is sometimes favoritism of the kind you describe at journals, but I think it is (much) more likely that you just got unlucky and your friend got lucky–perhaps different associate editors handling your papers, perhaps the different sets of referees who had been approached, perhaps just negligence. Anyway, the main thing is, I’m sorry this happened and while I do think that sometimes journals (especially non triple blind ones–if it is triple blind you should not worry about this!) favor submissions from the well connected, I think our journal system is in such a sad state that it is more likely that you are just the victim of that and your friend got lucky. I hope you find a home for your paper! And I very much doubt that your work comes across in the ways described in these comments, at least, I wouldn’t worry that it does unless people you know and trust who are actually reading it tell you that–not strangers on a blog.

    Reply
  17. Kapto

    @Rabbit,
    Sorry, I did not mean to imply that the OP themselves was talking like an outsider (or to endorse the odious practice of excluding those who do!). I just meant that the alleged editorial favoritism is beyond our control, whereas talking like an insider isn’t. We can try to do that better, and from my experience it can help.
    @ Slacker, Curious, Apparently…,
    Well, not to be pedantic, but you asked for it. “Being that X,” as a substitute for “Given that X” or
    “since X,” is roundly considered incorrect English (partly because most substitutes for X don’t “be”), and in the UK and US it’s a staple of high school and early college attempts at sounding intellectual. So it’s frowned upon and says “amateur” in the (unfairly dominant) anglo-American editorial world. Just reporting here…
    Even more so “however,” in the middle of a sentence, as a synonym for “but on the other hand.” E.g. “Most philosophers are vegan, however, most lay people are carnivores.” That’s simply always incorrect. Rather, “however” just means “on the other hand.” So a correct version would be “Most philosophers are vegan. Most lay people, however, are carnivores.”
    You will never find either of those incorrect usages in a top journal article or even a blog post by a leading contemporary philosopher, wherever they’re from. I don’t agree with such verbal fussiness, but why write in a way that flouts conventions others (including non-native speakers) have all mastered? Better to appear like you know the rules of the game and have been at it a while.

    Reply
  18. Still curious

    @ Kapto
    What about the first name last name thing?

    Reply
  19. Kapto

    @Still curious,
    We don’t have any access to what scholars “think”, only what they’ve written, at one point, so it’s off to say, e.g. “Willard Van Orman Quine thinks that analysis can depend on experience” or “Robert Nozick thinks that sensitivity to evidence marks accurate belief as not just lucky.” And the first name- last-name thing is conventionally not done once you’ve introduced the philosopher or when they’re well-known. I didn’t discuss it because honestly I’m less sure about these examples than my others.
    @A bit weird, et al: To repeat, I’m NOT saying or implying the OP flouted any of these conventions. Obviously, I haven’t seen their submissions. It’s just that if editors favor insiders and senior profs, it could help to avoid practices that expose you as outside those groups. I’m offering tips on that front, whose helpfulness I’ve actually witnessed. That’s all.

    Reply
  20. Assistant Professor

    I too want to hear about the First name Last name thing! Sure, people drop last names in subfields to show that they are insiders who presume all other insiders also know exactly who is being referenced. However, there is another view, based in certain commitments to what philosophy ought to be like, that would suggest that the goal of good philosophical writing is that it is more widely accessible and not only legible to a niche audience in a subfield. (I think that was the correct use of “however in the previous sentence but I am only a middling contemporary philosopher and not a leading one; I can get away with bad grammar on a blog.)
    Also, sometimes people have the same last name and it is just weird to not want to be clear about what you mean and who you are referencing! Aren’t we aiming for clarity?!

    Reply
  21. Kapto

    I’ll say it again: I’m offering a tip for avoiding exclusion, based on what I (anecdotally) take to be the exclusionary practices of others. I’m not, however, endorsing the practices. Really, I promise! I can of course keep this info to myself, so only some of us can benefit by passing as more insider, if I’m right. I just kinda thought it’d help if I shared it. Thanks to those of you who got this.
    What, on the other hand, should be the goal of philosophical writing? Clarity? Cadence? Rhyming? Well, that’s obviously another topic. Or so I thought.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to SlackerCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading