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

Objections and replies sections in papers?

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

What's the prevailing view on adding an `Objections and Replies' section in the process of revising a manuscript (i.e., after receiving a R&R)? Is it considered a lazy move, specifically?

I've done this in a few of my papers, but not in most of them. Why? I don't know: sometimes a paper seems like it calls for one; other times not! I often try to preemptively address objections right in the main body of a paper, when presenting the argument. But sometimes there are so many possible objections that doing that would make the paper read poorly, distracting from the argument itself. So I think that's sort of how I make the decision.

What do readers think?

Posted in

12 responses to “Objections and replies sections in papers?”

  1. Replies to Objections and Replies

    I have no objection to a dedicated objections and replies section. In certain types of papers it makes sense. And I think I have even used them. (I just checked … and I do not think I have used such a dedicated section in any of my 100 or so paper).

    Reply
  2. Southern Grad Candidate

    From recent papers (00s to now) in Metaphysics at least this section seems to be part of a generic formula of philosophical papers. If you can conceive real and decent objections or people have addressed some of them to your work on presentations of yours, I think you should go for it. However, I can easily see some scenarios where either (1) you intend to merely introduce a discussion or a new way of seeing a problem or (2) you simply couldn’t conceive decent objections and the objections you’ve received demand a lot of discussion on unrelated stuff. On (1), I see no reason for you to present objections. On (2), I believe it will depend on how you value these objections as problematic (both from your perspective and from the literature, e.g. if the objection is the case your argument is false) and how much you want to “prove” your point. I’ve written a recent paper that falls into (2) and it really bothered me the possibility of the objections being taken seriously, so I discussed it in my paper.

    Reply
  3. Assistant prof

    Almost everyone hates these. They’re done in response to demands from referees. The usual course of events is that they are added during the course of an R&R to address referee comments. They are sometimes added pre-emptively for papers that get many objections.

    Reply
  4. assc prof

    Incorporate the objections into the formulation of your thesis and argument, and raise them then, if necessary.

    Reply
  5. cecil.burrow

    I think these sections are great, and often wish papers that don’t have them did. So often in more junky philosophy papers there are utterly obvious objections that just seem completely ignored. Having this section allows the author to discuss these objections in a way that doesn’t interrupt the flow of the rest of the paper. If there is an obvious objection that doesn’t appear in this section, then I can also more confidently (as a reader) conclude that the author simply overlooked that objection.

    Reply
  6. WL

    I like it when authors do this.

    Reply
  7. Michel

    I do not care for them; they strike me as stylistically poor. I’d rather read more of the paper, not a quasi bullet point list that’s been stapled on to the end of the paper.
    But it’s not a hill I’m going to die on, either. If you like them, write them; I would just say that stapling one on to deal with a referee seems like a bad reason to write one into the paper.

    Reply
  8. Fine

    I think they play a valuable role when it comes to objections that (a) some thoughtful readers can be expected to have; and (b) couldn’t be dealt with earlier without undermining flow or clarity or something else far more important.
    I’ve read papers with this section and, when it’s good, I have the thought, ‘Oh yes, finally, that’s been exactly my concern till now.’

    Reply
  9. Daniel Weltman

    I don’t think it’s lazy. I like when papers have a section like this. I am interested to hear why “Assistant prof” thinks almost everyone hates these. I have no real sense of the general opinion but if forced to guess I’d say there are at least as many people who are neutral or positive on them as there are who are negative on them.

    Reply
  10. academic migrant

    I think the best papers are written in a way that this section doesn’t need to exist. Several of my papers, however, have such a section. I have them mostly because I don’t know how to write in a way where objections don’t arise. That being said, I also used this section once to address one common but obvious misunderstanding.

    Reply
  11. Anne

    as a reader i love it when papers have these. I concede they are stylistically inferior, I just don’t think that matters much. Same with formalising arguments in premise-conclusion style. Style should follow structure and substance in my view.
    This kind of device makes arguments easier to read, and harder to obfuscate

    Reply
  12. AnAnon

    The one true correct way to do this is objections first, then bibliography, then thesis, then argument, then replies, as has long been established.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Assistant profCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading