Journal of Ethics Founding EIC Steps Down after 23 Years

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 14/08/2018 - 10:13pm in

J. Angelo Corlett, professor of philosophy at San Diego State University, founded the Journal of Ethics in 1995 and has served as its editor-in-chief since then. In an editorial in the journal last month, he announced he was stepping down as editor-in-chief and made some remarks that readers might find of interest.

The first concerns a topic discussed recently here: the length of articles. While just last month, Av Hiller (Portland State) argued for more short philosophy articles, Professor Corlett writes:

I also hope that the new editor will continue my tradition of not placing any page limitations on what is published in its pages as most of us have important articles which deserve to be published but cannot easily find a home for them because of the obsession among most publishers and their academic journals to publish rather brief pieces due to the fact that, as far as has been explained to me by some academic publishing editors, publishers are paid among other factors by the number of articles per journal volume sold. Given this fact, it behooves publishers to have published in their journals a greater number of brief articles than lengthy ones, no matter how much this adversely effects the publication of excellent lengthy articles or the quality of published research generally. The Journal of Ethics should continue to serve the philosophy community of ethicists by remaining open to publishing high quality work no matter what its length as this is yet one more distinctive feature of the journal. And it should not hesitate to publish high quality philosophical papers which go against the grain of mainstream ethics, though it is increasingly difficult to procure suitable referees in various areas of ethics due to entrenched biases among ethicists. This journal must continue to stand with Plato’s Socrates who urges us to follow the arguments wherever they lead us. I am confident that Socrates means for this injunction to be construed in a non-partisan manner.

The second concerns the general approach that Professor Corlett thinks editors should take towards authors. I don’t think his ideas here are controversial, but some may think that in academic philosophy generally they are not always lived up to:

Equally as important is that I wish the new editor the best of skill, dedication and luck and encourage him or her to edit with moral integrity and to attempt as I did to treat authors as s/he would like to be treated. Authors ought to be treated with dignity, respect, justly and fairly. And when errors are made, it is the duty of the Editor-in-Chief to take ultimate responsibility (with an attitude of taking strict liability) for the errors and to do all s/he can to correct them as quickly and as well as possible, providing authors with as much autonomy and authority in the process and as is possible under the circumstances. I have attempted to do this since 1995. It is the very least that an academic editor can do out of respect to authors, the journal s/he edits, and to the academic profession as a whole.

The whole editorial is here. Professor Corlett will continue to be listed as the journal’s Founding Editor. To my knowledge, a new editor-in-chief has not yet been named.

The post Journal of Ethics Founding EIC Steps Down after 23 Years appeared first on Daily Nous.

Should PhD Students Embargo Their Dissertations?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 26/07/2018 - 2:14am in

Most universities offer PhD students the option to embargo their dissertations, usually for up to two years. During the embargo, access to the official dissertation is restricted. Its content is not placed online, and if someone wanted to read it, they would likely have to go to the library of the university at which the degree was earned and view the hard copy while there.

A graduate student in English, AJ Gold, recently asked on Twitter whether or not to embargo her dissertation, and I thought it would be worth putting the question to Daily Nous readers.

Why embargo?

One reason is to keep one’s publishing options open. Some people worry that publishers won’t be interested in publishing articles and books whose primary content is already accessible to its prospective customers. This concern was voiced in a statement put out by the American Historical Association several years ago arguing that students be permitted to embargo their dissertations for up to six years:

Because many universities no longer keep hard copies of dissertations deposited in their libraries, more and more institutions are requiring that all successfully defended dissertations be posted online, so that they are free and accessible to anyone who wants to read them.  At the same time, however, an increasing number of university presses are reluctant to offer a publishing contract to newly minted PhDs whose dissertations have been freely available via online sources.  Presumably, online readers will become familiar with an author’s particular argument, methodology, and archival sources, and will feel no need to buy the book once it is available.  As a result, students who must post their dissertations online immediately after they receive their degree can find themselves at a serious disadvantage in their effort to get their first book published; it is not unusual for an early-career historian to spend five or six years revising a dissertation and preparing the manuscript for submission to a press for consideration. During that period, the scholar typically builds on the raw material presented in the dissertation, refines the argument, and improves the presentation itself. Thus, although there is so close a relationship between the dissertation and the book that presses often consider them competitors, the book is the measure of scholarly competence used by tenure committees…

History has been and remains a book-based discipline, and the requirement that dissertations be published online poses a tangible threat to the interests and careers of junior scholars in particular.  Many universities award tenure only to those junior faculty who have published a monograph within six years of receiving the PhD.  With the online publication of dissertations, historians will find it increasingly difficult to persuade publishers to make the considerable capital investments necessary to the production of scholarly monographs.

Though the authoring of books is more central to advancement of the careers of historians than it is to the careers of philosophers, books are still quite important in philosophy, and so similar questions arise for us. In a previous post, Peter Momtchiloff of Oxford University Press said that one of the main reasons to reject a manuscript is that it “sounds more like a dissertation than a book,” but I suspect that had more to do with how the work was written and framed, and less that it contained conclusions argued for in the author’s dissertation. Most dissertations need a lot of revising before they’d make good books.

In a post at Dissertation Reviews, Audrey Truschke argues, based on conversations with editors at university presses, that “not embargoing one’s dissertation immediately upon deposit is unlikely to harm an early career scholar’s chances of landing a book contract.” In another post, she argues that “visibility in one’s field, the resulting professional opportunities, and the inherent value of openly sharing scholarly work” speak against dissertation embargoes.

Perhaps some of our friends at university presses could inform us as to whether worries about the availability of dissertations co-opting the market for books based on them affect their decisions about what to publish.

As for articles, I have never heard of an academic philosophy journal rejecting an article because it was based largely on a part of a dissertation. Have others?

(Thanks to Michael Spicher for bringing AJ Gold’s tweet to my attention.)

Tychogirl, “Unchangeable Dark”

The post Should PhD Students Embargo Their Dissertations? appeared first on Daily Nous.

Philosopher Named Editor of Novel Book Series on Black Male Studies

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 25/07/2018 - 1:41am in

Tommy Curry, professor of philosophy and Africana studies at Texas A&M University, has been named editor of the first-ever university press book series focused on black and racialized males.

Professor Curry, who received death threats last year following a commentator’s misleading interpretation and selective quoting of his remarks in an earlier interview, is the author of the recent book, The Man-Not. He has previously called for the creation of an interdisciplinary field of study of black manhood.

Temple University Press will publish the series and is currently seeking book proposals for it. It will be centered around “the paradoxes of racially subjugated males.” A flyer for the series offers some details about its intended subject matter:

Black male studies is an interdisciplinary field dedicated to exploring the various developmental trajectories and the vulnerabilities (racial, sexual, economic) of Black men and boys in the United States and abroad. Building from established post-intersectional frameworks (e.g. social dominance theory, global South masculinities), this series looks to fill the gaps in the existing masculinities literatures that often assign the peculiar sexual violence and particular lethal oppression racially subjugated men have suffered throughout history to our more generic understanding of racism. Books published in this series would strive to create empirically informed theories of Black men and boys that can motivate our understanding of Black males beyond problem and pathology. Black Male Studies also welcomes innovative comparative and international projects drawing parallels between Black males and the experiences of other racialized males affected by deportation, genocide, poverty, and regional conflict and war.

See the flyer for contact details.

Whitfield Lovell, “Kin VII (Scent of Magnolia)”

The post Philosopher Named Editor of Novel Book Series on Black Male Studies appeared first on Daily Nous.

A Plea for More Short Journal Publications (guest post by Avram Hiller) (updated w/ reply to comments)

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 13/07/2018 - 12:58am in

“The marginal increase in overall enlightenment that arises from the additional time philosophers use to perfect long articles (and for readers to read them) is in many cases less than what could be achieved by using our time in other ways.”

The following is a guest post* by Avram Hiller, associate professor of philosophy at Portland State University. [Note: Professor Hiller replies to the comments in this update to the post.]

Av Hiller, “Hart’s Cove Trail”

A Plea for More Short Journal Publications
by Avram Hiller

David Velleman, Neil Sinhababu, Eric Schliesser (and here), and Elizabeth Hannon all identify significant problems with the present state of journal publishing. I won’t detail their arguments, but I believe that most of the problems they discuss would be significantly remedied under a simple proposal: there should be many more short articles/letters/notes, of 2000 words or less, published in philosophy journals, either in existing journals or in new ones dedicated to short pieces, and we should have a disciplinary norm not to besmirch short pieces.

Scientific journals publish many short pieces; in Nature, for instance, “letters” (short pieces of roughly 1,500 words) outnumber longer “articles” more than 5 to 1. While scientific papers may require fewer words than philosophical ones, there still are many benefits to having more short philosophy publications.

The main thing to consider is the (intrinsic) reason for publication in the first place: to advance our understanding of an issue. My contention (which I won’t attempt to argue for here) is that there are many worthwhile insights that can be expressed rather briefly. We spend a great deal of time perfecting long pieces, or adding background information that most readers will understand anyway. The marginal increase in overall enlightenment that arises from the additional time philosophers use to perfect long articles (and for readers to read them) is in many cases less than what could be achieved by using our time in other ways (such as writing additional short pieces). There will always be a central place for longer pieces, but the publication of more short pieces may increase the overall quality of scholarship as more ideas are shared early on, allowing authors to adjust their views in response to early feedback and to find potential collaborators at early stages, and the discipline can move faster in worthwhile directions.

Some other benefits of this proposal:

(1) It should be much easier for referees and editors to review short pieces, thus significantly shortening turn-around times and making it easier on referees.

(2) Authors could spend less time per paper, thus reducing the risk wasting time on work that turns out not to be published.

(3) More papers could be published in the same amount of journal space, increasing acceptance rates. I have no objection to the existence of a number of top journals having super-low acceptance rates for long papers. But this practice leads to the problem that there are many highly reputable ideas that are not seeing the light of day in highly reputable journals.

(4) With many ideas published in shorter pieces, there may end up being fewer longer pieces submitted to journals, improving the review process at those places. Ideally, the writing of longer pieces would be reserved for ideas that the author has deemed worth the extra time to perfect in long form, perhaps because the idea has already been partly vetted in a short publication. (Journals that publish short pieces should permit authors to use ideas published in them as springboards for longer works.)

(5) This practice would be more inclusive. The publication of short pieces would help those at small institutions and lacking in personal connections more easily have their ideas be more broadly known and the resulting responses could help them improve upon their developing ideas. And philosophers with outside time limitations (e.g., from family or health issues) may find it much easier to compose shorter pieces in the hopes that later they can expand upon the ideas.

(6) We already spend a great deal of time philosophizing in ways that never get published, and there is a lot of value in those efforts that sometimes gets lost. We have informal conversations with philosophy friends, and give commentary at conferences. Many of these ideas have no chance of being published as full, independent papers, but deserve to be shared more broadly than with just those in the conference room. More generally, philosophy is often done dialogically, but dialogues typically happen behind closed doors. By encouraging the publication of short pieces, we can open up otherwise exclusive conversations to more participants.

One might object that this is just a proposal that there be more philosophy blogs. I welcome this comparison! Perhaps what I am proposing can be accomplished by a proliferation of blind peer-reviewed blogs. Not only would this increase quality and prestige of such posts, but blind review would democratize access to authoring posts in blogs.

Some philosophy journals already do publish shorter pieces and discussion notes. I applaud these—but there should be many more. And even the notable journals that publish short pieces typically do not publish pieces as short as what I have in mind. There is a precursor in the humanities that to some extent encompasses what I am proposing: Notes and Queries is a respected literature journal that publishes very short pieces. Additionally, most philosophy journals do not publish entirely negative pieces, even though negative or disconfirming pieces can have significant value; the importance of publishing negative results is becoming more recognized in the sciences, at least.

Finally, there are some potential problems for my proposal that I won’t address but will at least mark here: (1) It may compromise the blindness of reviewing longer and more prestigious follow-up pieces; (2) Journals that accept short pieces may be flooded with many low-quality submissions (current norms that require paper lengths of more than 5000 words function as an initial filter); (3) We may need updated disciplinary criteria for evaluating the professional significance of shorter publications. Suggestions on how to handle or avoid these problems are welcome.

Update: This post has occasioned some responses elsewhere: “We Need More Philosophy Blogs (yeah!); Or why Philosophy papers feel so long” by Eric Schliesser (Amsterdam) at Digressions & Impressions and “A plea for more types of publications” by Marcus Arvan (Tampa) at The Philosophers’ Cocoon.

Update 2: Professor Hiller has written up a response to some of the comments on his proposal:

Thanks for the responses! A few thoughts: This is one of those cases in which history has given us certain practices and institutions, and it is worth taking time to evaluate whether these practices and institutions serve us well in the current context (and whether they were the right ones to begin with). Does the distribution of length of published philosophy papers match properly with what the distribution of philosophy paper length ought to be nowadays? At the very least, I hope that this post spurs discussion about the question.

 Papers should be as long as the insights in them require. Some insights do indeed require lengthy treatment, and others don’t. My concern is that smallish but good insights are likely not to get published except if the author makes a significant effort to bolster them with lots of other material to meet institutional norms. That is very unfortunate.

 Jon Light suggests that this will be tougher on Editors than I had imagined. What he says seems right. I hope there are ways to overcome the issue he raises, and hope that publishers view the publication of short papers as a priority and thereby help provide the kind of institutional support needed. I think the toughest burden Light mentions would fall upon Managing Editors rather than Editors, so it is potentially a problem to be solved with more money for wages (for, likely, grad students).

About whether writing shorter pieces really is less time consuming, my sense is that taking 8000 words down to 6000 is horribly arduous. But if one aims for 2000 words from the outset, it is not so hard to write something short. How much easier is refereeing a short paper than a long paper? I myself sometimes get hung up when refereeing long papers. With short papers, one can give quick feedback and be done. So my hunch is that refereeing short papers is easier than refereeing longer papers even disproportionate to their brevity. But that is largely an empirical question and perhaps my own experience is not the same as others.

Steve points to an important issue. There are good reasons to try to be more inclusive with our citations. To me, it is an open question whether short papers would help or harm that aim. On the one hand, they may obviate the perceived need to cite Important Papers written by Important Philosophers, as a paper may just be on a small point written by a not-so-well-known philosopher. On the other hand, it may give an excuse to ignore papers written by not-so-well-known philosophers.

Another issue raised is whether most journals in fact publish, or at least are happy to publish, short pieces. I have not done a systematic study, but my own sense is that major journals other than Thought and Analysis only rarely publish short papers. GJ says the following journals routinely publish short pieces – take a look for yourself at how many are under 3K, let alone 2K, words: ErkAJPRatioPhil StudiesPPQ. (Even most papers in Analysis nowadays are over 3K words.) It is an interesting question whether the lack of short pieces is due to authors not submitting or to journals not soliciting/accepting. My own sense is that journals that review short pieces typically demand more from authors in revisions, or just reject them outright. But I’d be very happy to hear otherwise from journal editors. (The comments below would be a good place!) And if Chris Stephens is right, then we should spread the good news loud and wide throughout the discipline to send short papers to journals.

The post A Plea for More Short Journal Publications (guest post by Avram Hiller) (updated w/ reply to comments) appeared first on Daily Nous.

Self-Citation and Anonymous Review

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/07/2018 - 12:47am in

How should you go about preparing an article for anonymous peer-review if you cite yourself in your article? There are a couple of issues here that suggest that mere redaction is not usually enough.

A full professor of philosophy who has published a lot and is associated with a few journals writes in with the following thoughts on the matter:

I believe manuscripts that are submitted for anonymous review should not make obvious references to the author’s own publications even when the details are redacted. In some cases, this already is enough to let the referee know exactly who the author is, which is obviously to be avoided in blind refereeing: “As I have argued in [redacted] there is what we might call a ‘naturalistic fallacy…’”

But, even when that is not so, the explicitly redacted citation indicates to the referee that this author is already published. This is a biasing piece of information, favoring published authors, that should be masked if doing so is not too costly. I don’t think it is too costly.

There are three ways to do so:

  • Cite: Just cite the piece without noting or signaling that it is the author’s (“As G. E. Moore argues in Principia Ethica,…”). This is not always possible, since a paper might want to build on one’s previous work, or one might be citing one’s own work with a frequency that strongly suggests authorship. But often it is perfectly possible.
  • Drop: Just drop those citations, without a trace, from the manuscript for purposes of refereeing, leaving out any signal such as “redacted.” In some cases, granted, this risks looking obtuse, failing to refer to work that a referee knows or might well believe should be cited. But often there is no such problem, and those citations can be easily and silently dropped.
  • Mix: A combination: avoid any reference at all unless this risks looking obtuse, in which case cite one’s own work very sparingly without any signal of authorship, just as if it were being cited by another author.

There are some ways of writing that might resist any of these techniques. But in that case they are not properly prepared for blind review. I suggest that editors return such manuscripts for better preparation rather than permit such an obvious loophole. The proscribed style can be reinstated after the paper is accepted and revised for final form.

Comments welcome.

Rebecca Ward, masking tape installation

The post Self-Citation and Anonymous Review appeared first on Daily Nous.

Submitting Book Proposals to Multiple Presses at Once

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 27/06/2018 - 10:23pm in

A reader writes in with a question about book publishing:

What are the norms in academia regarding submitting book proposals to multiple publishers at once? Is it is done? Should it be allowed (or encouraged)? And, if it is done, does one (should one) let the publishers know you’re doing it? Does it make a difference whether it is a mere proposal being submitted or a whole manuscript? Does it make a difference whether the proposal is being submitted to academic or non-academic presses?

Editors, please let us know your views. If you’re an author who has simultaneously submitted book proposals to multiple presses, or looked into it, please share what you’ve learned. Thanks!

Also, readers may be interested in this post from 2015: “Answers from Academic Publishers.” While the foregoing questions are not addressed in it, many other book publishing questions are.

Nasreen Mohamedi, untitled

The post Submitting Book Proposals to Multiple Presses at Once appeared first on Daily Nous.

Peer Review or Perish: The Problem of Free Riders in Philosophy (guest post by Elizabeth Hannon)

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 23/05/2018 - 12:00am in

“Here’s a radical suggestion, using the only weapon/motivational device editors have: If someone fails to fulfill their duties as referee, the journal will not accept submissions from that referee.”

The following is a guest post* by Elizabeth Hannon (LSE), assistant editor of the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (BJPS), regarding “bad behavior” by referees. It puts forth for public discussion a proposal about how to address such behavior—the proposal has not yet been adopted as an official journal policy. (A version of this post first appeared on the BJPS blog, Auxiliary Hypotheses.)

Peer Review or Perish: The Problem of Free Riders in Philosophy
by Elizabeth Hannon

As any journal editor will tell you (at length, possibly via the medium of rant), the trickiest part of the job is not the papers, not the authors, and not even the typesetters. It’s the referees. It is no mean feat to secure referees who are, first, reliable in their academic judgment, second, responsive to emails, and third, willing to return reports when they say they will. But the frustrations of editors aside, the far more pressing concern is for the career prospects of early-career researchers. Jobs and funding can depend on timely decisions. Indeed, whether an early-career researcher gets to become a mid- or late-career researcher can depend on whether a decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Common bad behavior from referees includes (but is not limited to!):

  1. Failing to respond to invites in a timely fashion (where timeliness is calculated in days not weeks), even if it’s only to decline the invitation;
  2. Agreeing to act as referee and to return the report within an agreed timeframe (in the BJPS’s case, four weeks), only to substantially exceed this timeframe (by weeks, sometimes months) and
    a. asking for this substantial extra time for the weakest of reasons*;
    b. not communicating with the relevant editors whatsoever;
  3. Returning a report long past the agreed timeframe, and that report being almost useless;
  4. Not returning the report and not responding to emails enquiring about the report.

Opinions differ on the obligations of academics as referees. Is it unpaid labour, an act of charity towards the community that ought only to be gratefully received? As much a part of the job as teaching and writing? Something in between? Whatever the answer, authors need more from referees than they ever have done; more depends on papers being reviewed in a professional, timely manner. And at the very least, there’s a ‘pay it forward’ case to be made: A paper sent to the BJPS that isn’t desk rejected can be expected to be read by at least six people (and that’s not counting the work that goes into any resubmissions). For every paper an author submits, other people have attended to their work in detail. The author, qua referee, might be expected to return the favour.

I’ve been lucky to witness some extremely productive philosophical engagement between authors and referees. When it’s good, it’s so good. The only shame is that so much of this is hidden. The process viewed en masse—the view one gets as an editor—is primarily one of cooperation and collegiality, and it’s a wonder that puts the lie to the notion of philosophy as anything like an individualistic endeavour.

But what to do about the bad referees, the system’s free riders? Relentless pestering and various forms of emotional blackmail fall on deaf ears. At the BJPS, we operate a flag system for persistent offenders, but all this amounts to is bad referees being asked to perform fewer reviews, while good referees carry more of the load.

So here’s a radical suggestion, using the only weapon/motivational device editors have: If someone fails to fulfill their duties as referee, the journal will not accept submissions from that referee, for some period of time to be determined. The time period should reflect the severity of the dereliction of duties. For instance, agreeing to act as a referee but then disappearing off the radar might warrant the most substantial ban. Delivering a meager report that’s extremely late, and without communicating with the relevant editor about the delay, might mean some shorter period of time on the bench. First-time offenders surely deserve different treatment to persistent re-offenders. And the embargo period will need to be substantial enough to be effective (too short and it will have no real impact; too long and it’s probably not practical due to the changes in the editorial team). The details can be ironed out.

It’s not just badly behaved referees that stand to suffer here. There’s a risk for the journal in question too: bad referees aren’t necessarily bad authors, and we risk losing good papers to other journals by refusing those authors’ papers. But the problem is so rife and its upshot so dire for early-career researchers that maybe something more radical is required to make clear what is expected of referees and ameliorate, at least to some degree, the problem of free-riders. All thoughts on this proposal very welcome!

— — —

* ‘I decided to go on holidays’ and ‘I have other deadlines that I decided to prioritise after agreeing to referee this paper’ are the problems, not the excuse. On the other hand, there are perfectly good reasons to be delayed in returning a report. Not only do we understand, we’ve been there. You are not the droids we’re looking for.

Art: Yelitza Diaz, “Transformation” (installation) (photo by J. Weinberg)

The post Peer Review or Perish: The Problem of Free Riders in Philosophy (guest post by Elizabeth Hannon) appeared first on Daily Nous.

Announcing the new Goldsmiths Press PERC Series

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 08/05/2018 - 11:00pm in

We are delighted to announce full details of the new PERC book series, which we hope will attract interest from readers and authors for many years to come. We’d welcome any enquiries and submissions – all details are provided below.

The PERC book series sits within the new Goldsmiths Press and is overseen by PERC’s Co-Directors, Aeron Davis and Will Davies. To date, it has featured two titles: The Death of Public Knowledge?  and Economic Science Fictions. A third title, Can Markets Solve Public Problems?: An Expedition into Neoliberal Interventions by Daniel Neyland, Vera Ehrenstein and Sveta Milyaeva will appear in autumn 2019.

Political economy begins from the recognition that economic structures are both the sites and outcomes of political struggles, at numerous scales. With that in mind, this book series seeks to publish work that revives, refreshes and reorients the study of political economy. We are seeking work that is not simply inter-disciplinary, but carves new paths between disciplines and different fields of empirical enquiry, bringing unexpected perspectives to the critical, theoretical and cultural study of the economy. At a time of great political and economic turbulence, this series will strive to illuminate the contemporary, for both academic and non-academic readers.

In keeping with long-standing traditions of Goldsmiths, the PERC series is committed to the cultural examination of contemporary capitalism, and to that end welcomes submissions that draw on cultural studies, economic anthropology, science and technology studies, history of economics, media studies and cultural economy. The series hopes to include critical investigations into (inter alia): neoliberalism, financialisation, management, money, inequality and elites, the platform economy, expertise and the economy of the anthropocene. Yet it also aims to create space for alternative economic futures to be identified, mapped and elucidated, seeking possibilities and hope in the crises of the present.

This series offers authors an opportunity to innovate, both in the content and the format of their publication. It caters both for traditional academic scholarship in the field of political economy (publications are peer reviewed and REF compliant) and for more unusual interventions, that are less easily classified. Due to the small size of Goldsmiths Press and the PERC Series, authors will have the benefit of a close working relationship with editors, which can – should authors wish – support books that break new ground in how political economy is imagined, narrated, visualised and published. All Goldsmiths Press titles are marketed and distributed globally by MIT Press.

About Goldsmiths Press

Goldsmiths Press aims to revive and regenerate the traditions and values of university press publishing through the innovative use of print and digital media. Its publishing cuts across disciplinary boundaries and blurs the distinctions between practice, theory, fiction and experimentation. Its list spans publications of diverse formats, lengths and writing styles.

Goldsmiths Press hopes to create a culture around academic knowledge practices that is more inventive and less constrained. As a unique collaboration between academics, writers, artists and publishing professionals, under the direction of an academic researcher, it is already part of a growing conversation around the future of academic publishing.

Goldsmiths Press is the UK’s first green open access monograph publisher, combining open access with a fair and varied pricing model for print books. Its books are marketed and distributed globally by MIT Press.

Submission Guidelines

If you have a book proposal which is ready and suitable for the PERC Series, please follow the submission guidelines as detailed on the Goldsmiths Press website, clearly indicating in the proposal that it is intended for this Series. The template submission forms should be used.

Alternatively, if you would like to discuss a possible title and explore its potential suitability for the PERC Series, please email Will Davies – w.davies[at] – including as much detail as you can regarding the idea. Will, or a colleague at Goldsmiths Press, will be happy to discuss the possible book with you, and how it might fit within the Series.

The post Announcing the new Goldsmiths Press PERC Series appeared first on Political Economy Research Centre.

Philosophy Has High Rate of Uncited Publications

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 19/04/2018 - 11:27pm in

A discipline-by-discipline analysis of data from Elsevier’s Scopus database concering over 10,000 pieces of research published between 2012 and 2016 shows that a massive amount of scholarly work goes uncited, according to a report in Times Higher Education

Philosophy has the 9th highest “uncitation” rate—52.2% of work going uncited—based on a study of all types of work published in 2012. The highest uncitation rate on this study is in visual arts and performing arts, followed by literature and literary theory, and then pharmacy.

(image from Times Higher Education)

Once the types of publications are limited to academic articles and reviews, philosophy becomes the discipline with the 8th highest uncitation rate—49.1%—with the highest rates belong to literature and literary theory, visual arts and performing arts, and religious studies.

(image from Times Higher Education)

Disciplines in the sciences tended to have much lower uncitation rates.

More information is here.

Related: “Philosophers Don’t Read and Cite Enough

The post Philosophy Has High Rate of Uncited Publications appeared first on Daily Nous.

The more revisions a paper undergoes, the greater its subsequent recognition in terms of citations

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/04/2018 - 8:00pm in



Is the peer review process simply a means by which errors are identified and corrected? Or is it a process in which a more constructive dialogue can take place and reviewers and editors may actively contribute to the text? John Rigby, Deborah Cox and Keith Julian have studied the published articles of a social sciences journal and found that the more […]