When I was at the beginning of my career as a philosopher, I was quite unfamiliar with how to write a philosophy paper and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. I was also particularly bad at seeking advice, so I had to learn much of the craft the hard way. As I see many early-career philosophers struggling with the same problems, I thought that I’d share a few thoughts about this in the hope of helping others in the same situation. It should be mentioned, however, that I’m still bad at asking for advice, still learning how to write, and my luck in these matters is unexceptional. For example, most of my papers have landed on different journals than those that I first submitted them to (arguably this is a norm given the high rejection rates nowadays). Concurringly, some of my favorite and most liked papers were hated by at least one reviewer (sometimes for right and sometimes for wrong reasons). That being said, here are my two cents.
Let me begin by saying that it is not my aim to provide any how-to-write guide here. This is because many good ones can be easily found on the internet. I do suggest looking at a few of them, however, as they tend to give the great common-sense tips. For example, they often emphasize the importance of organizing the paper so that it makes sense, the need to support one’s claims and anticipate objections, and not to argue against a strawman position. By and large, all the tips you’ll find are worth considering while acknowledging that philosophical tastes vary widely. In addition to these tips, I want to mention that I find Gerald Gradd and Cathy Birkenstein’s book “They Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing” worth the praise it has received and that the tips from Steven Pinker’s “Sense of Style,” which is another great practical guide on writing, writing, remain relevant to me.
In addition to the tips you’ll find in those sources, I want to highlight two less mentioned things to consider. First, besides checking the guides on how to write a philosophical paper, it is also worth considering what might be the most typical reasons why some papers are rejected. If you have the usual mistakes in the back of your head, you might avoid making them, and your prospects of writing a publishable paper increase significantly. From the top of my head, here are the main reasons why I reject papers (sometimes with the possibility to re-submit) in random order:
- The balance of the paper is somehow odd. For instance, it might have a lengthy introduction and exposition of the position it argues against, but the argument and its consequences are elaborated on only very briefly.
- The author does not motivate the reader as to why the discussed arguments and positions matter. For example, the paper may argue against a position that no one is holding, is a strawman position or may not give enough reason to think that the position is worth arguing against. A good paper sets out the debate accurately and concisely and explains why the topic is significant.
- The paper does not engage with relevant and somewhat recent literature on the matter. This is not always a reason for rejection, but more often than not, the paper is better when it aims to contribute to the existing discussions.
- Related to the point above, one reason to reject the paper is that it is not novel enough, i.e., it puts forward a view similar to what others have proposed in other publications before (and yet does not acknowledge the previous proposals).
- Obviously, all controversial assumptions, as well as interpretations of theories and arguments that differ from common interpretations, need to be justified.
- It is worth noting that merely having an objection to the argument or position the paper advances is not in my view a sufficient reason to reject it. Quite often authors can address the objections if they are given a chance to do so. After all, the authors cannot discuss all the objections that could be raised and might very well have something plausible to say in response to those not discussed in the paper.
The second thing I want to highlight is that it might also be worth checking how the papers are evaluated. That is, what the referees look for when you submit your article. The easiest way to do this is by reading the useful suggestions given by several philosophers on how to write a referee report. Some of my favorites are from Beth Hannon, John Greco, and Sara Uckelman. It is important to note though that sometimes journals provide specific instructions for referees that conflict with these more general guidelines. Nonetheless, I recommend looking at these pieces of advice as they help one to understand what referees look for in the submissions – and they, of course, make writing a referee report easier when you accept an invitation to do so.