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

  • Referees: how do you think about journal review deadlines?

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

    I am curious about people’s thoughts on the deadlines for reviewing papers. I know that journals always need referees, and agreeing to review a draft is usually a big help. Meanwhile, as an author, I always appreciate timely reports from journals, no matter what the verdict is.

    Interestingly, the last few times when I declined a request for reviewing a draft, the common reason was that the deadlines did not fit my schedule. For example, I declined a request yesterday because the journal wanted the report in 1.5 months, which was basically between now and the busiest time of the semester. If, for example, they have set the deadline in early-mid January, I would have been happy to review it, but that would mean that the reviewing takes 2.5 months that is significantly longer than their original expectation. I felt asking for a month extension was too much and not quite polite.
    Is this reasonable? Or did I treat the deadline for reviewing papers too seriously?

    I’ve noticed that journals seem to be requesting relatively short deadlines recently, and in cases where I’d be willing to review the paper but not meet the deadline, I’ve simply let the editor know this. As far as I can remember, they’ve always been fine with it–and indeed, I suspect journals are so in need of referees these days that they’ll generally accommodate reasonable requests for a longer deadline.

    What do other reviewers think/do?

    17

  • Presenting a conference paper after publication?

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

    Is it permissible to present a paper at a conference after it has already been published in a journal? I’ve seen some people do this, and it seemed beneficial both (i) for promoting their work to a wider audience and (ii) for receiving additional feedback and further developing their ideas. At the same time, I wonder whether the limited opportunities for audience feedback should instead be devoted to works that have not yet received enough feedback to become publishable.

    What do you think about this?

    My sense is that this is fine only if you submitted the paper to the conference before acceptance for publication. Obviously, there’s no way to know in advance whether a paper will be accepted by a journal, so if you submit to conferences and journals simultaneously (which is fine), there’s always a possibility a journal will accept the paper before the conference–in which case you’ve done nothing wrong. But my sense of disciplinary norms is that, in philosophy at least, conferences expect submissions to not be accepted already.

    Do readers agree?

    7

  • (When) can you submit a new version of a paper that a journal previously rejected?

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

    What are the conditions for a paper being new enough that you can submit a version of it to the same journal that a distant ancestor of the same paper was also sent to? I hear of some people sending multiple versions of a big idea to say phil review or whatever over multiple years, and of other people saying this is impermissible. Would be useful to get people’s impressions.

    I have wondered about this, as well. I think I’ve tried it a couple of times in the past years after the initial rejection, but only when the overall argument of the revised paper turned out to be quite different than the original one (which necessitated a different title, etc.). But I don’t think I’ve ever had any luck with it.

    Do any readers have any helpful tips/experiences to share?

    7

  • New Volume: “Too Weird to Believe, Too Plausible to Deny: Mind-Blowing Philosophical Ideas”

    This is just a quick note that a new volume is out, Too Weird to Believe, Too Plausible to DenyMind-Blowing Philosophical Ideas (edited by Cliff Sosis). It’s a book that provides short introductions to famous yet startling philosophical arguments, and features a great lineup of philosophers.

    Cliff put together a series of videos introducing some of the chapters, a few of which I have appended below, including one on my chapter on Rawls’s theory that justice is founded in (a kind of) ignorance. Hope some of you decide to check out the volume and perhaps use it in some undergrad courses!

    0