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

  • Discussion: applying to international jobs from the US

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

    Can we get a thread on applying to international jobs from the US? I feel completely lost since so many places don’t use a tenure system, and I’m afraid I’m wasting my time since I’m a junior faculty at a SLAC and don’t have international recognition. Are there places other than PhilJobs I should be looking at?

    I suspect a discussion thread here could be super useful. In addition to the OP’s question about whether international jobs are advertised other places than PhilJobs, I think it could be great to hear some inside tips from faculty who work outside of the US. Are there things that applicants for jobs should know about applying for jobs where you are–particularly applicants from the US?

    Does anyone have any helpful insights to share?

    8

  • Long review times for R&R verdicts with “minor revisions”?

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

    I recently had an R&R from a good journal after slightly longer than 3 months. The comments in both reports were very minor: one suggestion each, and they were both immediately fixable. I fixed them and returned the revision within a week. It has now been about two months (so it most likely went back to the reviewers), and this made me think about the turnaround time and check-in norms regarding fairly minor R&R’s. Since I only made two paragraphs worth of change, it seems plausible to me that this would take a much shorter review time — both that it would not take nearly as much time to secure referees, and that it would be much easier to check whether the revisions meet the points raised in the reports than to do an initial assessment. So it’s taking longer than I had thought.

    Am I missing any respect of the review process? More specifically, and in general: should one expect R&R’s to take about as long as every other new submission? Perhaps people can share their anecdotal evidence that confirms or disconfirms this. And if so, is it generally considered acceptable to check-in about R&R’s sooner than one would in cases of new submissions? Many thanks.

    I’ve had experiences like this for conditional acceptances. They made me anxious but always worked out okay in the end. I suspect part of the explanation may be that referees are simply given a normal deadline by journals for sending in their reports. Alternatively, it could be that the editor has received the report already but for one reason or another is taking time to reach a decision.

    Do any readers have any helpful insights?

    5

  • Using a co-authored writing sample? In a subfield where co-authoring is common?

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

    Would it be ill-advised to use a co-authored paper for a writing sample for a TT job application? For context: I’m the lead author on the paper and did the majority of the writing and conceptualization; I have other single-authored published works (in peer-reviewed journals) which a search committee will see on my cv; the co-authored piece I’m considering sending is strong (in my view) but is currently unpublished. My thinking is that it represents my best and most current writing, and, because it is unpublished, it would only be accessible to search committees if I directly send it. Thoughts?

    I seem to recall this question being asked many times at the Cocoon, with the consensus answer always being a firm no. Why? Because (or so the usual answer goes) committees want to measure a candidate’s own philosophical “chops”, and a co-authored paper isn’t the best gauge of that (since it can be hard/impossible for a committee to disentangle the applicant’s contributions from those of any coauthors). But maybe things have changed?

    In any case, another reader added a further question to the mix, asking whether it makes a difference if co-authoring is common in their subfield:

    I want to ask a similar question to @multi-author paper as writing sample, though in a slightly different context. I am a postdoc and will be applying to both TT and non-TT jobs this year. I have some single-authored articles. In my postdoc however I’ve ventured into a subfield in philosophy where it is more common than not to co-publish. People in my subfield understand this, but other philosophers may not (which, of course, will be the case for most people sitting on search committees). Like @multi-author paper as writing sample, I too believe that a co-authored paper where I’m the lead and responsible for the vast majority of writing is a very strong piece. Is this something I could address in my cover letter?

    Do any readers have helpful insights to share?

    8

  • How to list publications as a mid-career philosopher?

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

    Can we go over how publications in C.V.s are supposed to be listed for mid-career philosophers? ‘Peer-reviewed’ seems to sometimes stand for blind-reviewed journal articles, but invited contributions like a chapter in an edited volume are also peer-reviewed. Is it better to just list by kind (journal article, chapter in ed. volume, book review/discussion, etc) or do you all have other ways of organizing the different kinds of publications?

    I list “peer-reviewed journal publications”, etc., separating things out into different categories.

    What do other mid-career readers do? Any other helpful insights?

    7