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

  • Submitting book proposals and/or manuscripts to multiple presses?

    A reader wrote in by email asking "whether it’s fine to submit a book proposal, or manuscript, to multiple publishers at once?"

    I wrote the following here back in 2015:

    4. Is it acceptable to send out proposals to multiple presses at the same time? Is it a good idea? I know Leiter had a thread on this a while back and absolutely no one could agree. 

    I struggled (as Sam did) to find good answers to this online, but actually in my experience it has a very straightforward answer: each publisher has their own policies. Some publishers will not consider a proposal under review elsewhere, others will. The important thing is to be communicate clearly with whomever you are dealing with. In your query letter, for instance, you might say, "My proposal is currently under review at other presses." In many cases, editors simply sent me an email telling me to try again later. In other cases, they were happy to look at the proposal even if it were under review elsewhere.

    Things are very different, however, when it comes to the review process for entire book manuscripts. In my experience, most (but not all) presses will not permit you to have your entire manuscript under review elsewhere while they are reviewing it. There is one exception to this I encountered myself, and which you might ask about. Some publishers will allow you to have your manuscript reviewed at other presses if you confer to them a "right of first-refusal"–which is basically a binding agreement that you will publish the book with them if they accept it, even if another (possibly better) press wants to offer you a contract. The editor at Routledge offered me this, and I was very thankful, since I was able to have my entire manuscript reviewed by multiple places simultaneously (many other presses would not review the manuscript while it was under review with Routledge, but some did!). This sped up the entire book publishing process for me immeasurably. I placed the entire manuscript under review with several presses all at the same time, and a few months later I heard from all three of them at roughly the same time. 

    Do any other readers have helpful insights or experiences to share?

    7

  • Serious misgivings about a paper in R&R?

    In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

    I've recently received an R&R from a journal. However, I now have significant misgivings about the paper; I no longer like the way I framed the issue, my views have developed/changed since the manuscript has been under review, etc. The referee report suggested a number of changes. However, there are many things not mentioned by the referee that I would like to change. Frankly, I would prefer to scrap the manuscript altogether and rewrite it from scratch. What do people recommend doing in this kind of situation? Is withdrawing the manuscript unreasonable? If not, what do I say to the journal/editor? Some context: I am a junior academic with a non-tt but permanent position. I already have a handful of publications in respectable journals. I felt somewhat rushed in sending this manuscript out for job market reasons (it's one of the main positive contributions of my diss.), I'm now regretting doing so.

    This seems like a tough situation. On the one hand, I don't think rewriting the entire paper from scratch is advisable for an R&R. I think I tried that once a very long time ago, and the response I received from reviewers was all-too-predictable: they were pretty outraged that I had the temerity to send in a completely different paper–which they felt was inappropriate for an R&R and basically wasted their time. In brief, I think an R&R probably has to be a revised version of what was previously submitted–at least if it is to have a real chance of acceptance. But maybe I'm wrong about this. Have others tried full-scale paper rewrites at the R&R stage and had success in the process?

    As for withdrawing the paper, that's always an author's prerogative. But I'm not sure that anyone can answer the question of whether to do that better than the OP. Why? Because I guess it depends upon how unhappy they are with the paper, and whether they think they'd regret publishing any version of it that might get through the R&R process. From the sound of things (and given that it is one of the main contributions of their dissertation), it seems like the OP would regret publishing without full-scale rewriting–which would seemingly speak in favor of withdrawing. Finally, though, if the OP is still looking for a TT job, then what to do may depend upon whether publishing the paper would help or hinder their efforts at obtaining one (which could depend upon the kind of journal the paper is at). 

    What do other readers think?

    8

  • Do people browse (mid- to lower-tier) journals?

    In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

    Does anyone browse mid- to lower-tier journals looking for something to read, or do people only read articles there when something outside refers them to them?

    Personally, I don't browse journals simpliciter: I just see what comes up in PhilPapers's new items list or whatever else I come across in the course of my research (viz. Google Scholar, etc.). In any case, I don't discriminate between tiers of journals. If a paper is relevant to what I'm writing, then I cite and/or engage with it in detail. If it's not, then I don't.

    What about other readers? Do you "browse journals"? Or is your research process more freewheeling like mine?

    14

  • Is it Okay to be a Moderate? Podcast interview @Academic Edgelords

    This is just a quick note that Academic Edgelords has a new podcast episode up interviewing me on my recent book, Why It's OK to be a Moderate. 

    Here's the episode description:

    Is moderation just fence-sitting, or is it a forgotten virtue? In this episode, we sit down with philosopher Marcus Arvan to discuss his new book Why It’s OK to Be a Moderate. We dig into why radicals often steal the spotlight, how moral certainty can slip into fanaticism, and why history may vindicate moderates more than we think. We also debate Arvan on the moral permissibility of centrism.

    You can also listen at:

    Apple podcasts

    Spotify

    0