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

Writing a paper on a conference presentation (w/author’s permission)?

A reader writes in by email:

I attended a talk recently. The presenter’s thesis seemed plausible and mostly convincing, yet there was one particular angle that the presenter underdeveloped that left me with one objection that I consider to be novel. I was unsatisfied in Q&A with the presenter’s reply to my objection. I could foresee myself writing conference remarks or even an article to continue this exchange in long form.

The trouble is: how would I cite the presenter’s work? The ideas there haven’t been published yet; it was all brand-new work. I could recreate the same debate parameters, following the same secondary literature trail the presenter did. I would of course arrive at different conclusions. But when I say what POV my view is an objection to, I don’t want to simply say, ‘Here is one possible view;’ I would prefer to put that presenter’s name with the view. I could leave a footnote giving credit to the presenter, noting when and where the inspiration occurred. I want to avoid all appearances of plagiarism, but I’m very uncertain on what the norms for this are or should be. Do readers have any intuitions on how I could give credit where it’s due?

Complicating this is the slim chance that my objection is so plausible that the presenter no longer wishes to be identified with the view being objected to, in which case it’s a moot point to try to credit said presenter. I would ultimately ask the presenter’s permission before proceeding, but what should I do before then?

I’m not sure, but I definitely think that, at a minimum, one should absolutely ask the original author’s/presenter’s permission before proceeding to write anything. But even then, the OP would be (as they put it) recreating the “same debate parameters”, utilizing the “same secondary literature trail”, etc. So, I’m not sure that what the OP describes can be done in a legitimate way.

What do readers think?

Posted in , ,

14 responses to “Writing a paper on a conference presentation (w/author’s permission)?”

  1. Anonymous

    I don’t think it’s fair practice to write this paper. Even with the author’s permission I’d be afraid they felt obliged to say Yes.

    Reply
  2. Declan

    Pragmatically, if OP were to write this as a reply paper it would be incredibly difficult to get published. There’s very few journals that accept replies to papers outside their journal as it is, and I’m not sure of any that would accept a reply to a presentation.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    You could ask the presenter if they want to coauthor a paper with you.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    I agree with other commenters that there is no good way to do this, and probably no journals interested in publishing it. (Technically, you are *allowed* to cite unpublished work (if presented, it is public; citation manuals explain how to cite such work), but doing so does not seem like a best practice for reasons articulated elsewhere in this thread.

    Best alt: Subscribe to the presenter on Phil People and get alerts when they publish something new. When the paper in question comes out, immediately write and send your reply to the same journal as a discussion/commentary. No point working on it till then, since it won’t have a venue.

    Reply
  5. hmm

    I would consider it very poor form to write a paper that “recreated the same debate parameters, following the same secondary literature trail the presenter did”. That is work that they did, as much as the conclusion that they reached. The framing and question of a project can be a very big part of whether papers get published. If your paper came out first, and then they couldn’t publish theirs because it no longer looks as novel… or if theirs does come out, but after yours, and so looks derivative of yours instead of the other way around… I am not sure that this isn’t just directly taking credit for someone else’s work.

    I think at a minimum you would need to cite them prominently (i.e. in the main text and with a bit of fanfare) for setting up the issue and literature review, not merely cite them for the “one possible view” that you respond to.

    I might think that even with that citation I should not to try to publish on this before they do, especially if it is a relatively new area of work or a novel way of framing a problem.

    If you are determined to proceed, I agree with Marcus that you should talk to the original author *before* you write something, not merely afterwards to ask how they would like to be cited. What you should not do is go and write up a manuscript that strongly resembles their talk except for the conclusions and only tell them afterwards that you have done so.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      What do you mean by fanfare here?

      Reply
  6. anon

    I agree that going ahead to write the paper without asking the author seems morally dodgy. It’s also likely to contribute to a culture where people feel unsafe sharing new ideas at presentations. Asking to co-author seems like a good choice.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    It sounds to me like OP would need to wait for the paper to be published (if ever), then write a response piece.

    I don’t think a response piece to an unpublished article is of sufficient interest to be published. And, as Marcus suggests, borrowing the presenter’s setup feels a little too close to plagiarism.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    If you are moral social political, F&E has something like “critical exchanges.” But I don’t know about the details.

    Reply
  9. Susan

    It is important to keep in mind that setting up debate parameters is one way people can be especially novel in philosophy. So hearing debate parameters in a talk that you never heard before is a signal that you shouldn’t write up a paper set up that way. It is is just part of how the field works that if you have an objection to a talk that isn’t published yet, it just stays in the room. And that is why people feel comfortable presenting works in progress. Otherwise people would just sit on their ideas until they are published. And I know some people who do this out of paranoia of being ‘scooped’. Contacting the presenter is this way is not appropriate. You can contact them and ask them to let you know when the paper gets published or if the paper is online.

    Reply
  10. Emma

    This is a frustrating situation – there are not a lot of ways of doing this legitimately. I would email the presenter to ask if the paper is under review anywhere, as perhaps you could prepare to write a response piece to it. Otherwise, maybe raise the possibility of co-authoring a piece on the idea.

    Reply
  11. Anonymous

    Invite to co-author. Doing so avoids the concerns raised here.

    Reply
  12. Anonymous

    Several have advised the OP against pursuing this project before the other paper has been published, and I agree for the reasons stated above. I’ll add that OP should consider the fact that in this case, they have already made an important philosophical contribution to this debate, publication or no: they’ve raised a novel objection to a colleague’s work in progress, which that colleague can now incorporate into their project. I know my papers have greatly benefitted from objections raised in such contexts, and I’ve been very grateful to those who raised them. I think it’s important to preserve the kind of goodwill that makes this sort of exchange possible. Sometimes we just need to give our ideas away for free.

    Reply
  13. Anonymous

    OP here. I’m grateful for this inquiry receiving so much feedback. Because I was enthusiastic about their work, I’ll ask to stay in touch with the presenter, but there will be no strings attached. If they publish their idea, and I feel there is work left to be done, then I can pursue it then under normal citation circumstances. If not, then I’ll let my objection fade away, and say it was “given away for free,” as the last commenter suggested.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading