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 (2026-27)

  1. When is it time to pull a paper and resubmit at a different journal. I’m a postdoctoral researcher. I’ve had…

recent posts

about

  • David Bourget’s MATCHA app for preventing AI misuse

    David Bourget (Western University) writes in:

    For the past several months, I’ve been developing a new tool to help prevent AI cheating by students. It’s called MATCHA—Modern Authoring Tool for Certified Human Authorship. It’s a word processor with features that help instructors prevent or strongly deter AI misuse, whether students are writing in class or at home. I thought readers of the Philosophers’ Cocoon might be interested to learn about it. Please check it out and let me know what you think: https://matchawriter.com

    The app looks very cool to be, but I’d love to hear readers’ reactions (and better yet) reviews!

    What do readers think? Anyone tried the app?

    5

  • How to list job-talks on one’s CV?

    In our June “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

    I have a CV question. For research talks that were given as part of an on-campus invite, should these be in the CV? And if so, should they go under the label “invited talks” or under the general “talks” section? From a tenure-review perspective, I can see why it would be maybe unusual and misleading to list those under ‘invited,’ but I wonder if this is how search committees for tt positions are looking at dossiers. Maybe it depends on the kind of institution.

    What do readers think?

    6

  • When to inquire about a paper under review?

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

    If a paper is taking a longish time (say, more than 3 months) at a journal, is there any point in sending an email inquiry as the author? I assume that the reviewers are being slow and that the editors are sending reminders. I also assume that there’s nothing the editors can really do to speed up reviewers that they are not already doing. Suppose I’m not considering retracting my submission (yet), is there any point in sending an inquiry?

    I recall when discussing this in the past, readers suggested it can be reasonable to send an inquiry after 3 or 4 months. But, like the OP, I’m not sure whether there’s a point to it. Then again, I’ve also heard stories of papers getting “lost” at journals from time to time, so maybe it couldn’t hurt?

    What do readers think?

    12

  • Delayed decision on “minor revisions” that was an unofficial acceptance?

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

    I recently had a “minor revisions” verdict from a journal that was actually an unofficial acceptance and an instruction to de-anonymize the manuscript and to to the final formatting in line with the journal’s house style (etc.). They explicitly said that the peer review process had finished and that I needed to do the final formatting before they can accept it.

    Now, though, I’ve been waiting to hear back from them for several weeks. I know that’s normal for an actual revision, but does anyone have a sense of how long this can take for a fake revision that was effectively an acceptance? This is the first time I’ve had to do all the final proofing steps with the acceptance hanging over my head—indeed, I’ve published with this same journal in the past and they didn’t do this! Is this the new norm? Time is of the essence for me in terms of being able to report that it is accepted and uploading a pre-print and all of that, so I’m wondering if there’s a point at which (2 months? 4 months?) I should just treat the damn thing as having been accepted. Is there any chance that they could reject it at this point?

    I’m not sure. Do any readers have helpful insights to share?

    11