Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

A new philosophy journal? “Germ”

Brian Leiter

Philosopher Bryan Frances writes:

Here’s an idea for a new philosophy journal, called “Germ”. All it publishes are the germs of ideas. No development, no stage-setting, no detailed arguments, no treatment or even mention of the relevant literature, and so on. Max word length would be something like 500. When submitting to the journal, the author has the option of including a 1000-word semi-development of the idea, just so the referees can see what the alleged benefits of the idea might be. That bit would NOT be published.

Think of how many articles could be published this way. Usually, articles are around 6000-8000 words; but that’s equivalent to 12-16 Germ articles. And think of how easy and fun it would be to read them: takes just a couple minutes each. If a reader thought the idea was super promising, they could write the author for further discussion, brainstorming, collaboration, or whatever. Finally, it might be easier to referee the papers, since there's not much to assess. It's not like the referee has to engage a complicated argument or view.

I know that lots of us have the experience of reading an article and thinking "That's a cool idea, although I think I might develop or assess it differently". I'm often convinced that an author has a cool idea even though I'm not convinced by the particular arguments or views that it generates. Perhaps Germ articles would promote more creativity, since readers are left to their own devices when developing the idea.

The journal Analysis publishes short pieces, but it wants detailed argumentation and rigor. Well, screw that (joke).

Is this the germ of a decent idea for a journal?

Leave a Reply to Tom S Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

14 responses to “A new philosophy journal? “Germ””

  1. Stephen Maitzen

    Since you asked: I think it's a terrible proposal for a journal. There are too many half-baked ideas at large in the culture as it is. We don't need a journal adding to that clutter, which would only worsen the inaccurate public perception of philosophy. Let prospective authors do their homework, seek feedback, and stress-test their ideas before taking up journal space.

    Reply
  2. oldster

    I foresee grave problems with ownership, attribution of credit, and accusations of plagiarism.
    Imagine that there were a similar forum for screenplay ideas. I write in with my germs of ideas for a screenplay — what if a boy and a girl from conflicting socioeconomic backgrounds meet and fall in love? What if a group of social outcasts bands together to fight crime? What if we had a musical comedy about people coming together to stage a musical comedy?
    Ideas, in their germinal stage, are so vague and diffuse that they overlap with thousands of other, more or less determinate, ideas and developments of ideas. If you take my idea about star-crossed lovers and develop it into West Side Story, or R&J, should I get credit for your movie or play? Can I generate claims to revenues from all future movies simply by publishing the germs of ideas for plot-outlines that are so vague that every future movie will overlap with one or more of them?
    Many excellent philosophical articles begin from ideas that many other philosophers have already had, in some less determinate form. We credit the eventual author for having worked up the idea into a final product, and rightly dismiss those who claim to have had the same thought at an earlier time — or rather, we do not dismiss them, but we give them no formal credit for their merely having had a good idea. If they can point to their 200-word submission in a journal 5 years ago (and this comment is already over 200 words), then it will be harder to deny them credit. And this in turn will mean that future authors are deterred from developing the ideas published in the journal (since the credit is already diluted) rather than encouraged to use them.

    Reply
  3. Enzo Rossi

    I'm sceptical. There are plenty of venues for just trying out ideas: workshops, conferences, social media.

    And then there's the intractable credit issue raised by oldster.

    If something original and worthwhile can be said in 500 words, then hopefully Analysis or Ergo will publish it. But there's a reason why even there most articles are much longer.

    Reply
  4. Vicky L Brandt

    Several years back someone proposed on this blog that we should consider _limiting_ the number of papers grad students and young faculty could publish, to encourage deeper and more nuanced work. I'm in the quality over quantity camp.

    Reply
  5. Charles Bakker

    I don’t know about this particular idea, but I do think a journal in which authors gave 500 word summaries of what is novel about arguments they have worked up and published elsewhere could be useful. I’ve grown tired of browsing through 5-9,500 words of explication in search of the 500 unique words that are actually pushing the needle in an interesting way.

    Reply
  6. Brian [NOT BL]

    Well, since the editors of Analysis have destroyed everything that was interesting and distinctive about that journal, why not call it "Analysis-as-it-was-in-the-good-old-days"? Not an ideal title, but nor is "Germ".

    Reply
  7. Boris Babic

    Honestly I think the content of such a journal — the germs of philosophers — would be as worth avoiding as it sounds.

    Reply
  8. Ellen Clarke

    I love it! Coming up with ideas is so much more fun than developing them!

    Reply
  9. Shane Glackin

    Proposal: a rival journal, set up with USDHHS funds, named "Miasma".

    Reply
  10. Gregor

    I'd be more inclined to browse a journal "Précis": the condensed gist of ideas that have already been developed, but may be spread out over many articles or even several books.

    Reply
  11. Tom S

    Why stop at philosophy? There are a lot of cool ideas in the medical journals. But those graphs and trials and longitudinal studies are so yawn. Sometimes I don't even understand them! Just think of how much more we could publish if we just stuck to the cool ideas.

    Reply
  12. Larry L

    Sheesh, what a tough crowd! If _Germ_ were to operate as envisioned by Bryan F, it might stimulate creative thinking in others, resulting in theorizing of higher quality and greater utility. And it could well prompt the development of positive new collegial relationships–not something with which our discipline is overflowing. As for the prophecies of doom and gloom, there is no need to assume that contributions to such a venue would be so highly valued that they would replace more substantial philosophical contributions by young (and aspiring) faculty. Nor is it obvious that there is any "intractable" problem of _Germ_ contributors grabbing or 'diluting' the credit earned by subsequent authors who develop their ideas. If 'germs' are as insignificant as the naysayers say–and there will evidently be many who will hold them and their authors in some contempt, reminiscent of Newton's (or was it Boyle's?) expressed annoyance at scientists who generate novel ideas but fail to invest the effort to elaborate, test, and refine them–then it's hard to imagine philosophers being denied credit for full-fledged quality articles just because they may have drawn inspiration from something published in a _Germ_ blurb.
    So why all the clenching over this proposal? What exactly is the cost of inviting creative academics to add some peer-screened innovative theoretical suggestions to the enormous ocean of ideas in which we're already swimming?

    Reply
  13. Skeptic

    The "Germ" format already exists – it's called "Blog".

    Reply
  14. Enthusiastic ex-undergrad

    I love this.

    There are logistical problems eg reward and attribution.

    I also agree there are already blogs, forums etc.

    But there is a general reading public keen to read what’s going on in Philosophy (eg readers here), without necessarily going into much depth.

    As to lack of rigour: this to my mind is one of several good virtues of good Philosophy. There can be good but not rigorously argued philosophy (eg much of “Continental” style writing.

    The current barrier of entry to philosophical writing is too high, and the idea is addressing some real issues with the current journal system that should be addressed. Even if this particular solution fails, it is working on the right problem.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress