In our October “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks
How are publications in invite-only journals (like Phil Issues and Phil Topics) viewed? These journals often perform very badly in journal rankings (i.e. the Leiter polls), but I have the impression that those polls might be significantly understating the reputation of these journals. Is that right?
Good question. I have to confess that I’m not certain, but I suspect that people might consider papers in these journals primarily on a case-by-case basis (i.e. “you have to read the paper” to know how good it is). Frankly, I think this is probably the best way to evaluate a paper in any journal, but for all that, I suspect that people are more inclined to actually think this way for papers in journals like these (whereas there may be a greater tendency to evaluate papers in other journals by how prestigious the venue is).
But this is really just me speculating. What do you all think? It would be great to hear from everyone, but particularly from people who have served on hiring or tenure-and-promotion committees!
Originally appeared on The Philosophers’ Cocoon Read More