Publishing in English Language Journals: an editor’s viewBeijing Foreign Study University

October 2015

Background Greg Currie is Professor of Philosophy and Chair,

Department of Philosophy , University of York, UK Educated atLondon School of Economics University of California, Berkeley Worked for many years in Australia and New Zealand Universities of Sydney, Otago, Flinders (Adelaide) Visiting positions at Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, Bristol, Maryland

I work on The philosophy of the arts and cognition Particularly areas where scientific work has (should have) an

influence on philosophy:

The Imagination Seeing things in pictures How narratives are understood Irony Gaining knowledge from fictions

I am an editor of Mind & Language

Will be Editor-in-Chief from October 2016

Mind & Language was founded in the early nineteen eighties by a group of philosophers, linguists and cognitive scientists in London

Intended to encourage work across all those disciplines

And in particular to encourage philosophers to take seriously the idea that their work might have empirical implications

Its title reflects the situation of the times: language was the gateway from philosophy to the scientific study of mind

As things developed Other areas have become crucial: We pioneered studies of: “Theory of mind” (interpersonal understanding) Gordon,

Goldman, Harris, etc Delusions, Coltheart, Davies Awareness of intention, Jannerod, Unconscious drivers of action, Gendler

Journal policy Generally we look for papers which have implications for

more than one discipline Philosophy tends to be the “home” discipline; we expect

papers to be philosophically aware and to be of interest to philosophers

We run our own workshops and conferences annually and publish selected proceedings

We publish very few book reviews (more often book symposia)

We do not publish replies

What do we look for Papers should engage with a debate and a literature but

should have definite proposals that will move the debate on They should not review literature of simply comment of a

debate between others They should have a positive thesis We like, but don’t insist on, collaborative work

What we don’t want “Debate internal” Studies more suitable to an experimental journal “Experimental philosophy”?

Reviewing submitted papers Chief editor may decide to reject a paper as unsuitable En editor is assigned to look after the paper through the

refereeing process Chooses two referees, preferably from different disciplines Tries to get timely reports! Decides on the basis of the reports:

Accept without changes Accept with minor changes Revise and resubmit Reject without right of resubmission

We are a helpful journal We often see merit in a paper and suggest ways to make it

better That’s part of our mission But we don’t want to be treated as a source of feedback Submit only when ready! If asked to revise, take your time!– we have no deadline for

resubmission (unless we explicitly say so) We won’t take more than one resubmission

Advice to authors Read the journal You can see the most read papers listed on the journals web

site Take lessons from the best papers Take your time If possible get a native English speaker to check it (We do take into account non-native speaking and don’t

insist on traditional English!)

Responding to referees reports The graduate student mistake “The referee’s report is rubbish; they have not understood; I’ll take no

notice” Reports are sometimes bad Even good reports will contain mistakes Try to get as much critical feedback from it as you can Even a report that does not contain much useful criticisms is still a source of

important information The paper just did not excite the referee Editors don’t say “If there are no obvious errors we will publish the paper” They say “If you recommend publication there must be a very good positive

reason” “We simply can’t publish all the reasonably good papers we get”

Scholar One? Mind & Language will move over to this automatic

submission system within the next year and a half But we remain dependent on our referees It is not easy often to get suitable referees Often referees take too long Sometimes people asked to be referees refuse There may be delays before we hear from them All this can make the process longer than we would like

Judging where to send you papers Be realistic! Check out reliable rankings Many are recognised by professional bodies In philosophy things are not so clear A good recent one is http://mnemosynosis.livejournal.com/31062.html Mind & Language ranked 8th! Read papers in that journal and get a feel for what they like

My own publishing history Early on I wanted to publish in the best, most prestigious journals Received many rejections Published in Mind, Nous, Philosophical Studies, Australasian Journal of Philosophy,

Philosophy of Science, etc

All top 10 journals

As I gained a (small) reputation I felt less pressure

My typical publication pattern now is Invitation to speak at conference Asked to submit paper to edited volume or journal special issue Referring is much lighter—if at all An easier, less stressful path and I don’t have to put the work into submission and revision I also publish monographs (average one every six years) and volumes of essays I regularly publish with OUP one of the most prestigious