philosophy meta-forum

PPA

Hartry

25 day(s) ago

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/papa.12088/full I don't think my work would receive the same treatment at the journal. Even my manuscripts with conclusions and notes get rejected.

Carl

25 day(s) ago

"Derek Parfit submitted a draft of this essay to Philosophy & Public Affairs on January 1, 2017, in a state that he regarded as unfinished" WTF, he did WHAT? Why did he submit it then? fucking philosophical aristocracy

Justinian

25 day(s) ago

"Derek Parfit submitted a draft of this essay to Philosophy & Public Affairs on January 1, 2017, in a state that he regarded as unfinished" WTF, he did WHAT? Why did he submit it then? fucking philosophical aristocracy

Carl

Yeah, that's pretty galling. Unless maybe he did it because he felt deathly.

Nasir

24 day(s) ago

Weren't there online discussions a few years ago about the journal only publishing people from Princeton and Harvard, or something along those lines? Here it is: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/03/editorial-practices-at- philosophy-public-affairs.html

Antiphon

24 day(s) ago

I have just read the paper. I dabble in this subfield, greatly admire Parfit, and think this paper is not very good. Given that, I find it hard to believe that Parfit actually submitted it. I mean, how often did he submit papers to peer-reviewed journals? Why would he submit this mediocre, unfinished paper when he was so slow to publish much better stuff that he had worked on for ages? Ok, maybe that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but even if Parfit did submit the paper, it clearly does not meet the journal's editorial standards. There is almost no original contribution here beyond what has already been said elsewhere by Parfit and others. A fair reading of the paper would have resulted in rejection, and I think Parfit would have agreed. It would have been better if this had just been included along with Parfit's other unfinished drafts in some book.

Kevin

24 day(s) ago

Why would he submit this mediocre, unfinished paper when he was so slow to publish much better stuff that he had worked on for ages?

Antiphon

An answer is provided in the editor's note: "In a cover note, Parfit indicated [...] that he hoped to improve the article further with the aid of reviewer comments." So it looks like he submitted it to get feedback.

Christopher

24 day(s) ago

So much for the Velleman's "publication emergency" being a result of grad students shopping their unrevised papers at journals to get feedback. If Parfit's doing it, so can grad students.

Can PPA still call itself a blind peer reviewed journal?

Anita

24 day(s) ago

"In a cover note, Parfit indicated [...] that he hoped to improve the article further with the aid of reviewer comments." So it looks like he submitted it to get feedback.

Exactly, because heavens knows Parfit would never be able to find people in the field (or students or colleagues) willing to give him feedback on his draft work.

Basilides

24 day(s) ago

So much for the Velleman's "publication emergency" being a result of grad students shopping their unrevised papers at journals to get feedback. If Parfit's doing it, so can grad students.

Can PPA still call itself a blind peer reviewed journal?

Christopher

>There's no pattern were x's tend to be F since this x is not F

Walter

24 day(s) ago

The Oxford-Harvard-Princeton Journal of Reasonableness Studies.

Kevin

24 day(s) ago

"In a cover note, Parfit indicated [...] that he hoped to improve the article further with the aid of reviewer comments." So it looks like he submitted it to get feedback.

Exactly, because heavens knows Parfit would never be able to find people in the field (or students or colleagues) willing to give him feedback on his draft work.

Anita

I don't get it. Are you suggesting that the editors are lying about why he submitted it? If so, why did Parfit submit it, on your view? And why would the editors lie about it? Or maybe you're of the opinion that he didn't submit it, as one commentator suggested above. In that case how did the editors get ahold of it?

Thomas

24 day(s) ago

"In a cover note, Parfit indicated [...] that he hoped to improve the article further with the aid of reviewer comments." So it looks like he submitted it to get feedback.

Exactly, because heavens knows Parfit would never be able to find people in the field (or students or colleagues) willing to give him feedback on his draft work.

Anita

I don't get it. Are you suggesting that the editors are lying about why he submitted it? If so, why did Parfit submit it, on your view? And why would the editors lie about it? Or maybe you're of the opinion that he didn't submit it, as one commentator suggested above. In that case how did the editors get ahold of it?

Kevin

Uh... it's pretty clear Anita's remark was sarcastic, and intended to indicate that Parfit had no excuse to use the peer review process as an outlet for comments on his unfinished drafts.

Reading is tech.

Kevin

24 day(s) ago

"In a cover note, Parfit indicated [...] that he hoped to improve the article further with the aid of reviewer comments." So it looks like he submitted it to get feedback.

Exactly, because heavens knows Parfit would never be able to find people in the field (or students or colleagues) willing to give him feedback on his draft work.

Anita

I don't get it. Are you suggesting that the editors are lying about why he submitted it? If so, why did Parfit submit it, on your view? And why would the editors lie about it? Or maybe you're of the opinion that he didn't submit it, as one commentator suggested above. In that case how did the editors get ahold of it?

Kevin

Uh... it's pretty clear Anita's remark was sarcastic, and intended to indicate that Parfit had no excuse to use the peer review process as an outlet for comments on his unfinished drafts.

Reading is tech.

Thomas

Yes, thank you, Einstein, I know it was sarcastic.

Kevin

24 day(s) ago

Also, my comment literally doesn't make sense if I wasn't reading Anita's remark as sarcastic. Idiot.

Justus

24 day(s) ago

Also, my comment literally doesn't make sense if I wasn't reading Anita's remark as sarcastic. Idiot.

Kevin

Your comment literally doesn't make any sense even if you did catch the sarcasm. Unless you're a conspiracy nut, in which case the lizard people are still a long way off from a Turing machine.

Kevin

24 day(s) ago

Also, my comment literally doesn't make sense if I wasn't reading Anita's remark as sarcastic. Idiot.

Kevin

Your comment literally doesn't make any sense even if you did catch the sarcasm. Unless you're a conspiracy nut, in which case the lizard people are still a long way off from a Turing machine.

Justus

You are a genuine idiot. I was disputing the conspiracy theory floated by Antiphon. 'Reading is tech.'

Justus

24 day(s) ago

Also, my comment literally doesn't make sense if I wasn't reading Anita's remark as sarcastic. Idiot.

Kevin

Your comment literally doesn't make any sense even if you did catch the sarcasm. Unless you're a conspiracy nut, in which case the lizard people are still a long way off from a Turing machine.

Justus

You are a genuine idiot. I was disputing the conspiracy theory floated by Antiphon. 'Reading is tech.'

Kevin

And that's why you quoted Anita. Oh yeah, makes perfect sense now. Real cents.

Terry

21 day(s) ago

Have you seen anyone on the major blogs talking about this? It is an open secret that many journals aren't really anonymous, they know when you're a big name. The Parfit case is extra egregious, but I'm not sure it's qualitatively different.

Justus

21 day(s) ago

Have you seen anyone on the major blogs talking about this? It is an open secret that many journals aren't really anonymous, they know when you're a big name. The Parfit case is extra egregious, but I'm not sure it's qualitatively different.

Terry

I haven't seen it anywhere, no. It would be worth submitting to their attention, though.

Motoori

19 day(s) ago

Probably someone like Parfit can send a half-baked draft to PPA with a cover letter saying "I'm working on this, are you interested?". They'll of course say yes and, as it turns out, they'll publish it even if it's unfinished, after perfunctory peer review. Who needs pages in that journal anyway, right?

Jaegwon

19 day(s) ago

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/03/editorial-practices-at- philosophy-public-affairs.html

Thoughts?

Jaegwon

19 day(s) ago

The best summarizing comment from that thread and I still think true of the state of political philosophy: "There are two top journals in political philosophy (Ethics, P&PA), and another very solid one (JPP). One is a closed shop, another takes 12-18 months for a positive verdict and has very opaque decision procedures, and the third one is ultra-quick but ruled with an iron fist by someone with a very strong agenda and a determination to promote the careers of a handful of people he anoints. Time for change, methinks."

Pierre-Simon

19 day(s) ago

Imagine you're the editor of PPA. I bet Parfit was too old school to use an online system so you get his paper in the mail or as an attachment. The next day he dies. Seriously, what are you going to do? Send it out to reviewers, knowing an r-and-r is meaningless? Just turn down a deathbed paper by one of the leading philosophers of his generation? Of course you send it to McMahan or Temkin or someone else in the field to sort it out! This is not a defence of PPA in general. I don't think it is corrupt per se but it only publishes stuff which is written as if it came out of Oxford or Harvard or Princeton (even if, in fact, it's by an Oxford trained philosopher at somewhere else) and that's a serious problem. But obsessing over this Parfit paper seems completely overblown.

Kwame

19 day(s) ago

I get what you're saying. But let's look at the counter factual. Let's say Parfit hadn't died. The problem is. 1) Why did he send the paper if it was unfinished? (I have a hard time believing it's because he saw "the end" coming since he wanted feedback) 2) Is this merely the tip of the iceberg? Do famous types from Oxford/Princeton/Harvard just toss their half thought out stuff to the editors for feedback then publish it?

Pierre-Simon

19 day(s) ago

Sure, those are good questions, but Parfit's intentions are both hard to assess and irrelevant to the question of what you would do as the editor of PPA if your inbox contained both a submission from Parfit and an email saying he was dead. As to the question of whether 'big names' regularly send unpolished papers in the hope of feedback, who knows? Ask them? What is, I agree, far more likely is that an unpolished paper by no-name gets treated very differently than an unpolished paper by big name. But even that makes sense - Pettit's unpolished thoughts on Republicanism are probably more worthy of publication than the very same paper by me, simply because it's more interesting that he has changed his mind. All of this carping about big names just distracts from the real scandal that, say, the most boring (but polished!) paper using Rawlsian themes from someone trained by someone trained by someone trained by Cohen is far, far more likely to be published than a genuinely interesting (polished) paper using Hayekian or Habermasian or whatever themes. That's the real scandal!


Allowed tags: 'p', 'b', 'em', 'blockquote'. URLs are automatically linkified.
posts per page.