Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Cogito Ergo Publish Openly
May 28, 2014 4:21 PM   Subscribe

Discouraged by limited access, exclusivity in subject matter and author demographics, lack of transparency and long wait times, Ergo is a new take on the philosophy journal that recently released their first volume.
posted by Lutoslawski (13 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite

 
Meta: Can anyone tell at a glance what software they are using to host their journal? Are they using a commercial platform or something open source?
posted by Space Coyote at 4:37 PM on May 28


Ok, so publishing is something that differs wildly from field to field and I know nothing about how philosophy publishing works, but the first thing I noticed was:
The initial decisions on these 170 submissions break down as follows:
Ouch! That's harsher than Nature or Science is for my field.
posted by kiltedtaco at 5:04 PM on May 28


It is a very high rejection rate, or low acceptance rate. I suspect that two big factors are (1) the desire to quickly make the journal prestigious (in this way, a reputation for being really tough will make more good people send good stuff their way); and (2) the fact that a super-fast turnaround time is a consolation for the bad odds.

By comparison, Mind, which is very secure in its reputation (one of the top three journals in the field, according to the survey results the editors cite), only rejects around 85%. But, you can wait for years--literally--to get a final decision on a paper at Mind.
posted by Beardman at 5:13 PM on May 28


A little bit of insider baseball: does anyone know whether Ergo has attracted the same kind of skepticism that new Journal of the APA has? When JAPA was announced, I seem to recall that people at the Smoker, New APPS, and Leiter all grumbled about it to various degrees (like, why do we need another journal, etc.). I haven't heard any grousing about this one, but maybe that's because so many people loathe the APA.
posted by Beardman at 5:17 PM on May 28


Wow. 40 editors for 5 papers PLUS external reviewers. That's crazy.

My journal has one editor (me), a grad student, and about a dozen external reviewers at any one time. Next month we'll publish 8 papers (4 by women.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:23 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


Can anyone tell at a glance what software they are using to host their journal? Are they using a commercial platform or something open source?

I don't know for sure, but I searched for some distinctive keywords from the source code, and there are hints that it's DLXS.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 5:27 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


“The Logic of Mind-Body Identification”, by Bernard Molyneux (University of California, Davis)

if that IS your real name....
posted by thelonius at 5:52 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


there are hints that it's DLXS.

Interesting, makes sense since it's from UMichigan.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:48 PM on May 28


Did something change at Mind since this list was published, or did the folks at Certain Doubts get their numbers wrong? 'Cause in that list, they say Mind has a 95% rejection rate.

And if that list is right, so do lots of other top-ranked philosophy journals: Philosophical Review (96%), Journal of Philosophy (95%), Nous (93%), Philosophy and Public Affairs (95%), ...

The median rejection rate for "journals of primarily disciplinary interest" is claimed to be 90%, with a mean of 85.54%.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:54 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


A little bit of insider baseball: does anyone know whether Ergo has attracted the same kind of skepticism that new Journal of the APA has? When JAPA was announced, I seem to recall that people at the Smoker, New APPS, and Leiter all grumbled about it to various degrees (like, why do we need another journal, etc.). I haven't heard any grousing about this one, but maybe that's because so many people loathe the APA.

I haven't heard or seen any grousing about Ergo, but how much of that is down to it being open access and people taking a wait-and-see attitude?

(With the APA, I think the complaints were more along the lines of "Why are you doing this?" and "Can the APA -- a clearly dysfunctional organization with a history of horrible administration -- really produce a journal that isn't immediately of very low quality?" Plus, some people were worried that having a "truly generalist" journal as JAPA aspires to be basically means that the journal will be low quality by definition. I'm not sure how I feel about that last worry, but I think I remember seeing or hearing it expressed somewhere.)
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:58 PM on May 28 [1 favorite]


Philosophers working in areas that aren’t well represented in the most visible venues are marginalized by the implicit suggestion that their work is less important, or of lower quality, than work on the topics that dominate those journals. And similar concerns apply to other demographic dimensions like gender and ethnicity.

Facepalms.

Walks away.
posted by Fists O'Fury at 2:01 AM on May 29


Plus, some people were worried that having a "truly generalist" journal as JAPA aspires to be basically means that the journal will be low quality by definition.

Leiter made something close to that complaint, though the focus was still on how 'generalist' would have to be construed by a body like the APA. I guess there is a danger of things going that way, but the editorial board makes it seem unlikely to me. Ergo also has an avowed commitment to diversity and pluralism, and I've only heard good buzz about Ergo. Still, I have no idea about the monstrous quality-warping forces that administrators of the APA must face behind the scenes.

I have high hopes for Ergo. Philosophers' Imprint, the other premier open-access journal, is one of my favorite generalist journals (if not my favorite).
posted by painquale at 2:37 AM on May 29


Did something change at Mind since this list was published, or did the folks at Certain Doubts get their numbers wrong? 'Cause in that list, they say Mind has a 95% rejection rate.

I don't know where the Certain Doubts data is from--I got my 85% from the Cullison survey (where Mind's overall acceptance rate is 15%). If CD is also using volunteered data, the smallish sample sizes might produce that kind of discrepancy.
posted by Beardman at 7:36 AM on May 29


« Older "Can you imagine that within six years of getting ...  |  What is it that the global pse... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments