The Philosophers' Cocoon

4 responses to “Thoughts on the Journal of the APA?”

1. Ian

   October 15, 2025

   The editorial statement Marcus is thinking of might be the pre-amble to their author instructions, in part:

   The editors are committed to the following:

   • Publishing papers that go out on a limb, papers that start trends rather than merely adding epicycles to going trends.
   • Publishing papers from early-career philosophers as well as established philosophers already recognized for their work.
   • Publishing papers on topics that draw from and appeal to diverse philosophical constituencies and traditions.
   • Publishing readable papers that can be appreciated by philosophers not already steeped in the subject matter.
   • Providing a quick turnaround for submissions and the timely publication of accepted papers: no backlogs, no embargos.

   (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/information/author-instructions)

   I don’t systematically read any of the three journals OP mentions, but I have abstracted the impression that if a title/abstract catches my interest, the paper is more likely to be interesting, engaging, or fun to read if it is in JAPA. Might just be bad luck, but the articles I’ve read in Ergo and Phil Imprint are more likely to be tedious and dry… epicycles.

   From the author’s side: the last time I published in JAPA was 2023, and the experience was great. Excellent reviewers located quickly, helpful editorial feedback, and very high-quality copyediting.

   I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend submitting to JAPA if you find their editorial statement appealing, ESPECIALLY if care about writing philosophy that is enjoyable to read. That is a value they share that I don’t think many other journals share.

   Loading…

   Reply
2. Michel

   October 15, 2025

   On the whole, my experience with JAPA hasn’t been great. I’ve sent them three papers, which took 3, 6, and 1 month to their initial verdicts. The first and last were rejections, with cursory comments complaining about the paper’s unusual scope and audience (in the first case, the referee didn’t care for the original historical research supporting my claim; in the second, I was told to send it to a specialist journal).

   The middle paper, which took 6 months, got an R&R with two sets of supportive comments and a thirdr, more lukewarm set, was extensively revised to mollify R3, and then rejected three days after resubmission. I subsequently learned that at least one referee was never sent the revised paper, and I rather suspect none were. Which is too bad, because that was a really good paper.

   All three papers have since been published (well, one is forthcoming). I’ve had my share of rejections, but my experiences are usually much better than these were. These are papers which are unusual in one way or another, and so I had expected a somewhat friendlier reception for that unusualness at JAPA, given their stated commitments; having it thrown back at me in the reports was frustrating. The middle paper, in particular, sticks in my craw.

   As a reader, my impression is that’s it’s fine but–Aritotle On Trolling aside–not characterized by much unusual work.

   Loading…

   Reply
3. Ruffling Feathers

   October 16, 2025

   I’m at far too early a career stage to be able to identify meaningful trends between the outputs of different journals. But I can say this: one of the most original and provocative papers that I’ve read in recent years was published in the JAPA (Jorah Dannenberg’s “Doing Moral Philosophy without ‘Normativity’”). It’s a totally different style of paper, and I thought it great to see it published by a good journal.

   Loading…

   Reply
4. Daniel

   October 16, 2025

   I can’t speak to what they’re like as a place to publish in but I have read a lot of great papers from the journal. For instance just today I read Sean Smith’s “An Existential Attention Norm for Affectively Biased Sentient Beings: A Buddhist Intervention from Buddhaghosa” in the journal which was great. Since it’s a generalist journal I doubt anyone is reading a large swathe of what’s published in it, but for the stuff I’m liable to read, I think it’s good. (The copyediting for the paper I read today was not very well done – lots of typos – but whatever.)

   Loading…

   Reply