Philosophical Perspectives

It might be behind paywalls for many of you, but the latest Philosophical Perspectives is out. The number of papers by friends (and writers) of TAR is impressively large. I worry a bit that the paper Andy and I wrote for it looks a little slight in such august company. We’re the Page 2 to their, perhaps. (Of course in the off season I only read page 2, so take the analogy how you like.) But it’s impressive company to be in. And I think the paper we wrote is basically correct, even if it isn’t quite as deep as some of the other contributors.

106 Replies to “Philosophical Perspectives”

  1. Gil and Robert argue that journal quality is what matters. Mike argues on grounds of fairness. If we take the view that space in a journal is a good that the philosophical community distributes (and we should, if we care about the health of the philosophical community) then considerations of fairness should have some weight. How much weight? Well, not enough to trump quality. But there are other routes to quality besides invitation, routes which do not raise the fairness worries (eg, blind review). So if we think there is any weight whatsoever to the fairness worry (as Robert seems to) the fact that invitation only journals cannot avoid some degree of cronyism (no editor knows all the quality people out there or even knows people who know all the quality people out there), the fact that quality publications result from the process is not sufficient to justify invitation only journals, PP and P. Issues, and c. could become blind refereed journals which issue CFPs, Monist style.

  2. babybeluga,

    You know where I got that from, right: one of the all-time great rockabilly songs, Gene Vincent’s Be-Bop-A-Lula.

  3. Just looked at the table of contents for this issue of PP. Offhand, it’s pretty shocking. 4 of 18 contributors are women who completed their PhDs at MIT in the last few years (and who are well-known to be friends of the editor, Weatherson, etc.). The shared Syracuse and Rutgers connections also leap out. Throw in the overlaps from Bellingham, ‘Metaphysical Mayhem’, etc. and I can’t imagine seeing this volume as anything other than the editor’s friends getting their backs scratched again…

  4. Jaek,

    Here we go again. Why don’t you wait until you have read the articles before you pass judgment on the editor?

  5. Re Cronyism in philosophy:

    How could anyone be so foolish to think that it exists and exerts an influence in the profession?

  6. Re Cronyism in philosophy:

    How could anyone be so foolish to think that it exists and exerts an influence in the profession?

Comments are closed.