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 paper download metrics matter on the job market?

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

Do people check the download counts on other people's papers on Philpapers and websites of journals that have those metrics? I wonder if people think or know that someone might check that kind of thing when evaluating a job candidate, or if people look at that when "checking out" another philosopher in general.

Hmm…I doubt people go out of their way to do this. But I guess I sort of do wonder whether, if a committee member inadvertently sees that a candidate has a lot of downloads on PhilPapers, they might take this as a positive indication that there is a lot of interest in the candidate's work. 

What do readers think?

Posted in

11 responses to “Do paper download metrics matter on the job market?”

  1. Michel

    Nope.

    Reply
  2. UK Based

    Personally, I do not think that downloads mean anything at all. After all, downloads do not mean that anyone is actually engaging with the work (or, if my substantial folder of downloaded ‘I’ll get to them one day!’ pdfs is common to others, even, sadly, that they’ve been read).
    If this was ever mentioned in a committee meeting, I would strongly push back against this being even slightly important.
    Citation counts might be slightly different, but even then I think that with philosophy’s poor citation practices, issues around heavy self-citation rates, gender and other biases on who gets cited when, etc., I would also put little-to-no weight on citations for jobs. (Once you have a job, using citation rates to make a case for promotion is I think usual and common however).

    Reply
  3. on the tt

    I think Marcus is right. But, perhaps this would be a good time to remind people on the market that their attention is best spent on things they can control (informative cover letters, clear CVs, interesting writing samples, meaningful teaching statements). This kind of minutiae is…minute.

    Reply
  4. eek

    Thankfully, people do not consider downloads when selecting which job candidate to hire. First, this is a rather trivial measure – that is, it does not measure impact, which does matter. Second, it is far too easy to manipulate – hence it would not be a very reliable measure. Third, the differences between competing applicants is never so small that something as trite as downloads would be resorted to in order to decide who to hire.

    Reply
  5. Downloads matter

    No, I think this is mistaken. Papers with anomalously high downloads indicate scholarly reach.

    Reply
  6. Tim

    No. I check citations on google scholar routinely. But never downloads.

    Reply
  7. Nah

    Another no – you’re one data point. Citations matter more, but they doesn’t mean downloads aren’t important (they are).

    Reply
  8. Margins

    People who think downloads are important, I assume you’re talking about something like 1,000 vs 20 downloads, not 300 vs 150, right?

    Reply
  9. postdoc

    One of my papers has over 2,000 downloads on Philpapers (top 1% of downloads in a specialty area). In the three years it’s been out, it has only garnered one perfunctory citation in a non-philosophy journal. I don’t think the paper is ever going to have much scholarly impact and I certainly don’t think it’s my best work. So why does it have so many downloads? I really don’t know but my guess is that it’s on a topic that many non-philosophers are likely to Google. Anyway, this is just to say that I have serious doubts that Philpaper downloads reliably track scholarly impact.

    Reply
  10. Trevor Hedberg

    I can imagine that having a widely cited paper could make a small difference. I think it’s far less likely search committee members are paying much attention to download metrics on online archives. Obsessing over these kinds of details is not a worthwhile use of job candidates’ time.

    Reply
  11. JK

    I guess I’d push against UK Based. They say
    “I do not think that downloads mean anything at all. After all, downloads do not mean that anyone is actually engaging with the work (or, if my substantial folder of downloaded ‘I’ll get to them one day!’ pdfs is common to others, even, sadly, that they’ve been read).
    If this was ever mentioned in a committee meeting, I would strongly push back against this being even slightly important.
    Citation counts might be slightly different, but even then I think that with philosophy’s poor citation practices, issues around heavy self-citation rates, gender and other biases on who gets cited when, etc., I would also put little-to-no weight on citations for jobs. ”
    According to UK Based, this means that downloads and citation count don’t matter. But in that case, it seems like almost nothing matters. (Maybe journal prestige?). And that seems wrong. Clearly, download rate and citation matters to some degree–it tells you how much this person’s work is interacted with!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading