FW/MR Journals

I’ve been doing a bunch of bibliographic work lately, and it seems that a select number of journals publish a significant percentage of the free will/moral responsibility literature.  There are a couple of possible explanations for this fact.  But it also got me thinking about what journals might be the best to aim for when attempting to get work published in this area.  Here are some of the journals that have had articles on free will/moral responsibility in them recently (I’ve no doubt left some out—those that only solicit articles, I’ve left out on purpose):

American Philosophical Quarterly, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Ethics, Faith and Philosophy, Journal of Ethics, Journal of Philosophical Research, Journal of Philosophy, Journal of Social Philosophy, Mind, Nous, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Review, Philosophical Studies, Philosophical Topics, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Southern Journal of Philosophy

Some of these are obviously better than others.  But I’m curious how others see the breakdown, particularly since as a young scholar I don’t have a particularly strong grasp on these issues.  If you had to rank these publications according to the desirability of getting a FW/MR article published in them, how would you do it?  I’m not interested in cardinal ordering, but say groups in the following categories:  (I) Most Desirable, (II) Highly Desirable, (III)Pretty Desirable, and (IV) Hey, it’s a publication.  Also, feel free to add any journals, particularly to (I) and (II) that you think I may have overlooked.

NOTE:  I’m a little wary of asking people to voice their opinions on this issue publicly, particularly since GFP, as far as I can tell, doesn’t allow anonymous postings (though perhaps Neal or someone else can set the record straight).  Some might have good reason for not wanting their opinions on this subject to be made public.  However, I’m reminded of a much more controversial discussion of journals on The Leiter Reports (found here) where individuals actually named particular journals that they thought were 'irresponsible' and that junior faculty may think twice about submitting to if the tenure clock is ticking (I found this a very interesting thread).  And that discussion dind't allow anonymous postings, so perhaps there is some precident.  If anyone has suggestions on how we might have this discussion without people having to worry about negative ramifications of participating, I would be greatly appreciative.

Comments

[Kip Werking]

I submitted a candidate post to the Garden, relating the news that the latest issue of Midwest Studies in Philosophy (which I don't see on your list), is packed full of recent research on fr/mr. I learned this by subscribing in Bloglines to the Midwest Studies RSS feed.

I'm just an amateur (and law student), but my impression is that Nous, Mind, Journal of Philosophy, and Journal of Ethics are the better journals.

[Fritz]

hi Kevin,
Here are some thoughts, prefaced by a few preliminary comments. Here are two things one might be thinking about in assessing the desirability of publication -- (a) will the paper be read (by specialists? by general readers?)
(b) how does publication here look in, eg, a tenure file?

As for (a), well, the reading and research habits of specialists on a topic vary amazingly widely. Some read or try to read everything written on something they are working on to the extent that this might be manageable. Others work hard, or so it seems sometimes, to avoid reading anything! And we find everything in between. For picking up *general readers* ("just browsing the journals"), this drops off considerably outside of the top journals - my view of what these are will show up below.
As for (b) junior people at a very wide range of schools should be happy that when it comes to tenure-time evaluation of research, the assessment of the quality of the work really does take center stage and the placement of the publication (largely) falls aside. That's not to say that publications in the best journals aren't a significant plus and publication in exlusively weaker locations isn't noticed, but this more superficial factor of placement is largely dominated and drowned out by the qualitative assessment of the work by outside referees.

All that said, here are a few thoughts about the journals you list (and a few you don't list).

1. Phil Topics is an invitation only journal so it shouldn't be on your list here. Phil topics did a really good special issue on Freedom back in 1996 or so. Publications in these invitaton only places are desirable, though I know you aren't asking about them. They are desirable both because specialists tend to look at these collections and because inclusion shows that an editor went to you as someone to include in a special issue on a topic. Midwest Studies has a freedom issue coming out soon. Phil Perspectives did one a few years ago. No big loss not being in these volumes (space is limited) but it's a nice thing to be in them.

2. Analysis wasn't on your list; it will publish freedom stuff, and is a good journal but the focus is on short contributions. Short and substantive of course, but it's a different beast than most journals nad perhaps you left it off your list for this reason. Additionally, because it publishes short and snappy papers, the papers do reach a wide audience of readers that might not want to work through your 99 page master article but might take the time to check out your 4 page tightly argued discussion or critical piece.

3. Of the "general" journals (most but not all on your list count) I think the "big 4" by journal *reputation* is: JPhil, Phil Review, Mind, Nous. If that's the "big 4" then the pretty clear #5 is PPR. My own view, not shared by everyone (strange, but hey, not everyone is an incompatibilist either and that's even stranger) is that of these 5, the ordering in terms of quality per page (or something like that) is 1. Nous, 2. Mind 3. Phil Review 4. PPR 5. JPhil.
[I've published articles in the 3 of those that I've submited articles; never submitted to the other two; so my view here is as a longtime reader of all 5 and not as a disgruntled wannabe author for any of them...]

3.5: Ethics isn't a general journal (it's focused, interestingly enough, on Ethics). But yes, they do publish at least MR stuff, and Ethics is one of the best "specialty" journals to publish. I think publication in ethics is on a par with publication in a top 5 general journal.

4. A specifically phil of religion / freedom piece (on foreknowledge or divine freedom or...), is quite well placed in Faith and Philosophy.

5. My own divisions aren't as fine grained as yours, partly because I read very widely and partly because of the point made above about (b). I'd lump the rest of your list pretty much together as "solid respectable publications" or some other heading like "ok". Phil Studies is, in my view which I think is pretty widely shared, probably the best on the remaining list and they seem to do a good job with freedom pieces. The Southern Journal is in my view the weakest on your list (not to be confused with the Spindel Supplement to the Southern Journal which is invitation only and usually of high quality). ADditionally, there are quite a few "ok" places to publish FW/MR work that you don't list and that do publish work in these areas (Australasian Journal which I'd put up with Phil Studies; Phil Papers, etc....) but I won't ramble on even more and add to the list.

My main thoughts -- hey, write good papers. Some specialists will make a point to find and read them. Some general readers will read them too, though the chances of that go up considerably if publishing in top journals. It is a plus for a junior person to publish in very top and top tier journals. But it's great that at tenure time, the qualitative assessment of your work will take center stage and "placement" issues will at most be a minor consideration.

[Fritz]

PS -- If it's not clear and obvious: my ordering of those "top 5 as I see them" isn't an attempt to say anything important. Publishing in any of those journals (and some others too) is a feather in the cap of a junior person and is viewed in that way by any sane tenure committee or tenure referee -- which will then go on to assess the quality of the specific paper. And this is true of many other journals that aren't as strong as these top journals. Don't forget just how many submissions these journals get and how much they are TRYING to reject submissions (just got a paper in the mail today to referee for one of my top 5 - it included the editor's now somewhat famous line listing the acceptance/submission ratio and reminding referees of the need to lower that ratio even more...)

[Neil]

I'm essentially in agreement with Fritz's comments, with a couple of caveats. First (though I don't know the American academic scene anywhere near as well as he does) I think where a paper is published will influence assessment of its quality (especially by non-specialists: I sometimes read papers on topics I don't know, and think "well, it seems pretty weak to me, but it's published in X; I must be missing something). Second, I think we should get finer-grained outside the top 5. Fritz's top 5 is the same as mine. But there a number of journals almost as good. Fritz mentions PPR; to it one could add Phil Qu and Phil Studies, and (I think) the Aust. J. (which is *far* better than Phil Papers; the latter ranks with the Southern J.) Phil & Public Aff. is also around top 5 quality, and publishes papers on responsibility.

If you want to get finer-grained still (and you know you do: you're a philosopher!) have a look at the data from Brian Weatherson's Journal Survery, which seems reasonably accurate to me:

http://tar.weatherson.net/archives/002804.html

Finally, any of these journals, including the Southern J. and Phil. Papers, is worth publishing in. All of them have had good papers in, which have been widely cited (eg, Marilyn Friedman "Autonomy and the Split-Level Self." Southern Journal of Philosophy 1986), and the top 5 journals have all published papers that have sunk without a trace.

[Fritz]

Neil -- I meant to be putting AJP in with Phil Studies as just outside my top 5 general journals. Phil Papers was meant to be listed as just another place that Kevin hadn't listed -- it's clearly not in the AJP or Phil Studies league.

You're also correct to continue adding to the list (Phil Quart - of course!) -- I wasn't aiming to exhaust the listing by any means. And also "yes" to Phil and Public Affairs which isn't a "general" journal by my division but is a well respected and high quality specialty journal (like Ethics in my discussion).

And yes, one of the advantages to publishing in the top few or at least upper tier places is that non-specialists will use that as a reasonably proxy for quality and to inform judgements about quality. We agree. What's good is that that at formal evaluation time, specialists playing the centrally important role of outside referee, will not, assuming they are doing their job and so far I find that most do.

so we agree quite a bit, and I'm thankful for the additions and clarifications. Can I safely assume you must be an incompatibilist....

[Neil]

Well, I'm *officially* a compatibilist, but with no-free-will-either-way leanings on days with an 'r' in them.

[Randy Clarke]

I didn't see Philosophical Explorations in anyone's listing. Focuses on mind and action; just published a symposium on semicompatibilism.