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

  • Strategies for publishing short, unconnected criticisms of new theories?

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

    If I have a bunch of shortish, unconnected criticisms to offer for a bunch of new theories in my field, does it make sense to try to put together a paper that goes through them all, instead of trying to beef up each of them and scatter them across different papers?

    I’m thinking about a case where some of the points where some of the points can’t be made into papers on their own, either because they are too small, or because they are responses to work in an edited volume or a journal that doesn’t publish response pieces.

    This doesn’t seem to me like the sort of thing to try to publish in a single paper, particularly given that the OP mentions they are disconnected criticisms. To me, two possibilities present themselves: (1) publishing short “reply” papers (sometimes called “discussion notes”), and/or (2) trying to publish themselves in a journal that publishes short papers (such as Analysis).

    The one risk with spending time on reply papers, though, is that most journals only accept replies to articles that appear in their own pages–in which case, if your reply is rejected, you may be out of luck with it. It’s also not clear to me how often journals like Analysis publish short articles that merely criticize another article (typical Analysis articles seem to me to tend to advance novel original arguments).

    What do readers think?

    3

  • Advice on structuring a dissertation committee?

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

    I would appreciate some advice about how to structure one’s dissertation committee. As it happens, I’m deliberating between some plausible but non-obvious options for the “chair” person for my committee: one is more senior, widely known in the profession, but is farther removed from the (sub-)area of my dissertation research. The other is more junior, a few years out of PhD, but is more closely aligned with my work. There’s no procedural barrier either way, but let’s say they’d both say yes if asked.

    Would it ever make sense — from a job-market perspective — to have the more senior person as chair, even if you might get more substantive feedback and perhaps interact more with the junior person, given the specialized expertise? I believe I’ve seen in the past candidates who had an assistant professor as chair had great success on the job market. But I’ve also heard advice to the contrary. (I’m aware that, due to all sorts of conscious and unconscious biases that people have, recommendation letters from big-names might be particularly beneficial. But I’m not sure if letters of similar content would be weighted more simply because they come from the “chair,” if you’d have it anyways by bringing them on your committee.)

    I think it could be fine in principle to have a more senior person as chair, while perhaps interacting with and getting more feedback from a junior person. The key, I think, would be to do so in a way that ensures that everyone would be fine with this. I’m not sure how one would do that, but one definitely doesn’t want to alienate the senior person (one’s dissertation committee chair!) or other members of the committee by looking like one doesn’t really want to work with them. It’s been a long time since I was in grad school, but if I recall one of the most critical things is to have a dissertation committee and student who all work well together.

    What do readers think? Any helpful tips, experiences, or other insights to share?

    11

  • Withdrawing a manuscript because of typos and structural issues?

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

    About withdrawing submissions: a while after submitting my draft to a journal, I found a tons of typos and structural problems. I am sure that the draft has been sent out for review but not sure if it is under active review. What should I do? I am early-mid career so I do have some (minimal) reputation to keep. I am embarrassed about having submitted it, but wonder if withdrawing the submission would be even more embarrassing. 

    Given that the paper is already under review, I’d stay the course with it and learn from the experience, taking more care in future submissions. First, it’s possible an editor or reviewers might be even more irritated if reviewers have already put a bunch of work in writing reviews and the paper is withdrawn. But second, you never know: maybe you’ll get an R&R despite all of the problems!

    What do readers think?

    4

  • Completing a US PhD within 4 years?

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

    Is it common to complete a U.S. PhD within four years?! I’ve seen many people discussing the news that the U.S. government may limit the duration of F visas for international students. Previously, F visas could often be valid for five years or more, but now it may be changed to four years. As an international student starting a PhD program this fall, I’m quite worried. Is it realistic or reasonable to expect students to complete an entire PhD within only four years? If someone cannot finish within four years, would that mean all their work is wasted? Are universities aware of this issue, and have they prepared any plans or solutions for international students?

    All important questions. Do readers know the answers??

    13