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

  • Publishing short and long versions of an argument?

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

    Question about publication 'ethics': Say a philosopher is working on a project and is drafting a long, journal article length paper on the subject. While working on that project, the opportunity arises to publish a much shorter commentary style paper version of the longer paper, which would leave out a lot of details but highlight one specific part of the longer project. Is it weird to have a 'short' and 'long' version of an argument be published, if there are things highlighted or discussed differently between the two?

    Interesting question. I remember being in a similar position earlier in my career, and though my memory is hazy, I think that to play it safe, I just published one version of the argument (the short version). My understanding is that something sort of similar to what the OP describes ("salami-slicing") is considered unethical in the sciences, but it's not entirely clear from what the OP describes whether this is like that ("highlighting one specific part" of a larger argument may be quite different than the long-version presenting the rest of a much more involved argument). Then again, the OP also describes the short version as a "commentary … version of the longer paper" as well as a "short" and "long" version of a single argument, so I'm not sure.

    What do readers think?

    7

  • Zoom chat next Tuesday to celebrate Helen De Cruz’s philosophical artwork

    For those of you who may not be aware, long-time Cocoon contributor (and friend) Helen De Cruz is sadly in hospice care with a terminal illness.

    Next Tuesday, Georgi Gardiner (Tulane) is organizing a Zoom meeting to celebrate Helen's philosophical artworks. Details are below. I hope many of you choose to both spread the word and attend.

    Helen

    Tuesday, June 24th, 2025
    11am – 12.20pm Central US Time
    (i.e. 5pm BST)
    All welcome! No background knowledge required.
    You need not know Helen or her work, or have a background in philosophy.
    Please help spread the word!
    Sharing this post, flyer, facebook event, or website is extremely helpful.
    Organiser: Georgi Gardiner
    Contact: georgicloud9@gmail.com
    1

  • Single- vs. double- & triple-anonymized journals?

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

    Do you know philosophy journals reviewed in single-anonymized or identities-visible models? Recently I saw an established philosophy journal published by Springer say in its submission guidelines that its peer review process is single anonymized.

    According to the accompanying taxonomy file available at https://osf.io/we82n
    Single anonymized means Reviewer masked to author, author visible to reviewer, reviewer and author visible to (decision-making) editor;
    Double anonymized: Reviewer masked to author, author masked to reviewer, reviewer and author visible to (decision-making) editor;
    Triple anonymized: Reviewer masked to author, author masked to reviewer, reviewer & author masked to (decision-making) editor;
    All identities visible: Reviewer visible to author, author visible to reviewer, reviewer
    and author visible to (decision-making) editor.

    Since most philosophy journals seem to be Double or Triple anonymized, I am curious about philosophy journals reviewed in single-anonymized or identities-visible models. Do you know good philosophy journals adopt these models? What are the differences between the four models? Identities-visible model seems interesting because reviewers know that authors will know their identities, and so they tend to write the reports in much more responsible ways. But what about single-anonymized review? Reviewers know the identities of authors, but authors does not know the identities of reviewers, shall this model produce more responsible reports?

    I've received many 100 to 200 word reports with very biased, or deeply disrespectful and irrelevant, or even shameless and wrong comments from philosophy journals that adopt Double or Triple anonymized review models.

    Interesting questions. I was surprised to learn a number of years ago that in some scientific fields, single-anonymized review (authors' identities being visible to reviewers) is pretty much the norm. I didn't ever learn why that is exactly, but from what I gathered the results of the process did seem to be pretty biased in favor of well-placed researchers ("name" researchers at prestigious institutions/programs). Obviously, triple-anonymized review is supposed to be the best process for preventing biases like these–and I suspect most readers of the Cocoon are likely to favor triple-anonymity over the others–but as the OP notes there may be other tradeoffs.

    What do readers think? 

    4

  • Invited commentary articles: peer-reviewed or not?

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

    A journal has invited me to comment on one of their recent articles, but advised that the draft I submit will not be editable except in minor ways. I assume this means I will not be receiving substantive feedback on it. In that case, should such a publication be listed as 'peer-reviewed' on my resume? I suspect that scholars familiar with the journal, which is the best in its subfield, would find it strange to see a publication in this venue listed as an 'Other Publication' or the like.

    I'm not sure whether there's sufficient information in this query to tell one way or the other. For one thing, the OP doesn't seem sure whether they'll be receiving any substantive feedback. But for another, it's not clear whether the commentary will be subject to any kind of peer-review (e.g., by the editor) or simply published as received. Obviously, if it's the latter, it shouldn't be listed as peer-reviewed. So maybe the OP should just ask the editor?

    What do readers think?

    3