Should Philosophy Journals Get Rid of “Revise And Resubmit”?

A philosopher writes into Brian Leiter arguing that journals should straight up accept submissions, with suggestions for improvements preferred in a final draft, or outright reject them in order to free up referees to read more papers and to prevent time wasting counter-productive scenarios like this one:

a very prominent journal gave me an R&R, writing ” we find the paper a promising one, and we hope that you will be willing to revise it… we would not be inviting resubmission this strongly if we were not optimistic about finding a subsequent version acceptable for publication.” They enclosed two reader’s reports with minor suggestions. The journal then sent my revised paper to two entirely new referees, one of whom didn’t like it. After two rounds of revisions–bloating my paper with attempts to satisfy the one critical ref– the piece was rejected. I have heard many similar stories from others. No one wins in this scenario, and I can’t see that it contributes either to the pursuit of truth or to the efficient functioning of our profession. R&Rs ought to be abolished.

Overwhelmingly, Leiter’s readership is (so far) rejecting the idea, read their thoughts and contribute your own by going to Leiter Reports.

Your Thoughts?

"I applaud your approach and recommend, if you like, “Rogerian Argument” which does - as ..."

Making Arguments Less Tediously Repetitive, Contentious, ..."
"Perhaps this idea's time has come. I like your logical and convincing presentation. I have ..."

Making Arguments Less Tediously Repetitive, Contentious, ..."
"Yes! We need methods to help us have conversations with people we disagree with. Since ..."

Making Arguments Less Tediously Repetitive, Contentious, ..."
"Snoke is not well developed because he does not need to be. We already know ..."

Religion and Philosophy in The Last ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment