News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
Yes, as Jonathan Mitchell says above, PhilReview has the same policy, and JPhil has a particular submissions window. I’m not…
Philosophical Review has the same policy: “Only one submission per corresponding author is allowed at a time, and only one…
I was in a class on Heidegger with David Hoy in the early 80s, and though I was thoroughly in…
Dear Freye and David’s friends, We don’t know each other. I was an old friend of David’s, since we were…
Professor David Hoy guided me through my education at Santa Cruz from my very first quarter, where I took 20th-century…
I was fortunate enough to be David Hoy’s student in two lecture courses and one seminar at UCSC in the…
I don’t know a finer human being. It was a privilege to work with and learn from him, both personally…
A reader calls to my attention the policy at Mind: “No more than one article may be submitted by any corresponding author during any twelve-month period.” This apparently includes articles that get desk-rejected fairly quickly.
I can understand the reasons for such a policy, but I wonder (1) whether readers think they are justified? and (2) how common are such policies? Do other journals have them?
Signed comments (full name, valid email address) will be preferred.
Philosophical Review has the same policy: “Only one submission per corresponding author is allowed at a time, and only one submission per twelve months”.
Nous and PPR don’t have such a policy (at least not that I’m aware of), although as it well known they do have periods in which submission for new manuscripts are closed (as now does AJP and JPhil also, although these look to be more ad-hoc than the familiar Nous/PPR restrictions).
I assume these different policies broadly serve the same function, namely to restrict the sheer volume of submissions ‘under review’ at any one given time to allow editorial teams to work through massive backlogs.
I don’t have particularly strong views on whether such practices are justified. They seem prudentially appropriate in terms of allowing those journals to keep wait times for decisions within reasonable timeframes. Questioning if such practices are ‘moral’ seems confused at best.
I guess if one were fixated on publishing in those particular venues and only those venues it might be somewhat frustrating. But there are a sufficient number of alternative great venues to publish, such that if one really found such policies objectionable one could just submit elsewhere.
Yes, as Jonathan Mitchell says above, PhilReview has the same policy, and JPhil has a particular submissions window. I’m not aware of the AJP having a submissions window, but it does restrict you to one submission at a time, and no more than two in twelve months. I’ve only encountered these policies at top generalist journals.
I think it’s fine, though I find the submissions windows mildly annoying, because they don’t usually line up well with my paper pipeline.
Leave a Reply