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

  • Making edits to an accepted paper?

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

    What are the norms for making minor edits after a paper has been accepted (i.e., when the managing editor is awaiting author’s final version with typos fixed and reference style changed)?

    I believe the best case scenario is to not introduce any new content at all, but there has (alas) been a few ways, upon rereading, that I see could improve the readability of my paper. I have been thinking of changes of the following sorts: (1) changing a paraphrase to a full quote (so that the opponent’s view is more clearly on the table); (2) mapping out the dialectics/signposting more fully (so the reader would more easily follow where I am going next); (3) walking through one same point slightly more slowly (if the original version was rushed); (4) adding a few summary remarks at crucial junctures (“I have just shown that . . .”).

    None of this, of course, adds any new lines of arguments or changes any premises/conclusions. In principle, they are all aimed at readability, but I wonder if in practice these changes would be frowned upon, or — in the worse case — get the paper in trouble (i.e., verdict reconsidered).

    Or maybe I have been overthinking this entirely: the managing editor may not even notice these changes, and would typically send my final version? I would be very grateful for advice or information!

    I’m not 100% sure, but I think the norm is not to introduce new content. Correcting misspellings or a grammatically unwieldy sentence or two? Sure–but what the OP describes seems to like a lot of changes post-acceptance, and I guess I do worry about making significant changes like that. In cases like this where the OP really wants to make some changes, I wonder whether it might be best to ask the Editor what’s okay to do, and whether changes like these can be made. I’ve done that before with my papers in edited volumes and it worked out.

    What do readers think?

    4

  • LGBTQ philosophers: trying to leave the US?

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

    How seriously are other LGBT faculty thinking about leaving the US (T faculty especially)? Are you planning on applying out, or is your priority simply getting out, career be damned?

    I’m so sorry that the OP and others are facing questions like these. Are any readers willing to share their answers?

    2

  • How bad is the job-market?

    In our new “how can we help you?” thread, a first-time job-marketeer writes:

    I would love a “how bad is the job market” update now that it’s November, especially from those who have been on the market for a few years. In addition to any general updates people have, here are three questions I am interested in:

    1) I am applying fairly widely in my AOSes, and my total list of jobs is ~60 (I have already applied to ~40). Is this dismal for applying widely?

    2) I have been told this year (and perhaps moving forward) timelines will be all over the place because of funding, and so there might be more jobs posted in the spring this year and in future years (meaning it is still too early to tell *how* dismal the market is). Does anyone have intel on this?

    3) I have been told that this year is expected to be *particularly* bad, and that next year is expected to be better than this year (even if still bad). Does anyone have any intel on this?

    Do any readers have any helpful insights to share?

    18

  • How reviewers think about (journal-permitted and) declared AI usage

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

    I wanted to get some thoughts on something I’m feeling a bit anxious about regarding a recent journal submission.

    During the submission process, the editorial system had a notice stipulating that any use of AI tools, for any purpose, must be declared in the manuscript. As a non-native speaker, I used an AI tool strictly for grammar checking and language polishing. To be clear: I wrote the entire manuscript myself, but I used the tool to help improve clarity and smooth out awkward phrasing that I might have missed. I followed the rules and declared this use in the manuscript. However, I can’t help but wonder how this declaration will be perceived by editors and reviewers.

    For those of you who edit or review: When you see such a declaration (specifying it’s for polishing, not content generation), does it unconsciously incline you to see the author as less competent? Does it raise any flags or make you question the originality of the work, even if the ideas are 100% the author’s? Or am I just overthinking this?

    What do readers/reviewers think?

    25