Posted by Carrie Jenkins in Uncategorized
7 Responses to “Nous and PPR Taking Another Break”
Brian Weatherson says:
I never like these moritoriums, but I guess if they are out of publishing space, there’s not much else they can do.
I’m a little interested in what happens to the papers that would have gone there. One option would just be to sit on papers until October 1 and submit then.
I was a Phil Review editor when the last moritorium happened, and I thought we’d be flooded with extra articles coming in. But my impression was that submissions barely rose from what they’d been in the same period 12 months earlier. So either a lot of people were following the plan from the previous paragraph, or other journals were getting bombarded.
Chris Tucker says:
I’m not sure why they do these moratoriums, but I can see some positives. My impression is that Nous and PPR do a good job getting back to people in a timely manner. If these moratoriums prevent large backlogs of papers to be evaluated, then perhaps they contribute to the relatively quick response times. I certainly prefer moratoriums to being told upon submission that “Due to our large backlog of papers, we might get to your paper in 6 months. But don’t get your hopes up,” which I’ve heard (in a more professional form) at least a couple times.
Shameless plug: Semantics & Pragmatics would be thrilled to consider your submissions of any papers that connect philosophy to semantics and pragmatics. We use the best experts in the field as reviewers and have a median time to a first decision of under 60 days. Your paper will appear with open access to anyone in the world, in a journal supported by the Linguistic Society of America, MIT, and the University of Texas.
Joel Velasco says:
Another option is to become like Synthese – they currently have 196 articles in the “Online First” section of the journal’s homepage meaning that they have been proofed and published online but have not yet reached the print journal. The oldest of these were put online in October of 2007.
I suspect that many authors submitting to Synthese do not realize just how long it will take for their papers to come out in print. Though one could easily estimate the time by just going online and looking at the past. They do partially make up for it by publishing an inordinate amount every year (12 regular issues averaging slightly more than 150 pages each and six special issues in 2008) and anecdotal evidence suggests that the reviewing and proofing time is relatively fast.
At my current Academic home (Stanford), this works just great for me as a reader. I regularly check to see what is new there and it would basically make no difference to me if these papers never came out in print. However, at my previous home (Wisconsin), our electronic subscription to Synthese (and a number of other journals) did not cover the current publication year and therefore not the online first papers either.
Both Nous and PPR are published by Wiley Interscience and as far as I can tell, have no online first listings and so I have no way to know how many papers have already been accepted and are in the queue for proofing/publishing. So perhaps one reason for stopping submission is out of respect for the authors – they have no way of knowing just how large the backlog of papers to be published is and accepting submissions is like implying that if accepted, a paper will actually be available to readers in a reasonable amount of time. When they know that this implication would be very misleading, they stop accepting new submissions.
I recently got an R&R from PPR, and was told that in making my decision about whether to resubmit, I should bear in mind that the current delay between submission and publication is 2 1/2 years. As Joel says, on-line access would greatly help with this kind of thing. However Phil Papers helps by making drafts of accepted papers available (including mine, if anyone cares to look).
They’re both already very good journals, obviously, but I wonder why they don’t see this as an opportunity to be even more selective. Do they feel that they can’t make trustworthy quality discriminations among the class of papers they would normally be disposed to accept?
Mark S says:
eschwitz – I think it’s harder to improve selectivity than you might think, since editorial decisions have to be made with the help of referee input, which is hard to compare across difficult cases.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.