The idea that the APA should have a journal had been around for some time, but it came to fruition in 2012, when the Board of Officers created a committee charged with advancing a plan for a new journal. The committee—Julia Annas, Robert Audi (chair), David Rasmussen, T. M. Scanlon, Sally Scholz, Ernest Sosa, and Alison Wylie—reflected the varied interests of members of the APA.

Robert Audi wrote to me asking about my experiences as North American Editor for the Philosophical Quarterly, the Quarterly’s working with Blackwell (subsequently Wiley-Blackwell), and various other matters revolving around the logistics of journal publishing in philosophy. Robert also offered to put my name forward for the inaugural editorship unless I had reservations. In mid-August 2013 I submitted an application and was interviewed by the committee in September.

In the days following the interview, I began to have cold feet and, on October 11, sent the following email note to Robert:

“After considering, reconsidering, and consulting with [my wife] Harrison, I have pretty well determined that I will not after all pursue the editorship of JAPA.”

Let me explain.

I was initially interested in the journal because it seemed on first blush to promise so much. I thought of this as a chance to build a journal from the ground up that was, as I put it in my original application, a journal that ‘got it right’. Papers would be judged on merit, with a premium placed on readability, a quick turnaround, and timely publication.

Achieving these goals would, I believe, require a lean, polished, centralized editorial mechanism. In this regard, I am, on reflection, convinced that the proposed JAPA editorial structure is unwieldy and inefficient. The structure seems designed first and foremost, not to produce a really first-rate journal, but to ensure diversity. I predict the costs—in time, hard feelings, and professional second-guessing—will far outweigh any benefits.

Journal editors face a number of pressures. They must encourage good submissions, ensure a distribution of papers over areas that reflect interests of the readership, and deal with recalcitrant referees and authors. JAPA will add to this two unwelcome elements.

First, as noted above, a significant additional administrative overhead (in coordinating various elements in the hierarchy, including associate editors, consulting editors, and advisory editors). I realize that much of this is meant to be managed by associate editors, but I predict the relationship among associate editors and between associate editors and the editor will prove vexed.

Second, I see the editor(s) of JAPA as not merely facing the task of running a good journal under what will be unusual circumstances, but as being open to ongoing criticism on the part of various APA constituencies who feel, rightly or wrongly, that their interests are not being well served. This could easily turn into a no-win situation for the editor. In any case, it is not something I would want to take upon myself.

Over the weeks that followed I had numerous back-and-forths with Robert, whom I relied on to represent the sense of the APA journal committee. Eventually, I was persuaded to keep my name in play. Then, on November 10, 2013, I was contacted by Michael Bratman, chair of the APA Board of Officers, and offered the editorship, which was to begin on January 1, 2014, and run for four years. For better or worse, we were off and running!

The first task was to line up a nucleus of associate editors who accepted my vision of what a journal of the American Philosophical Association should look like, and who were working in complementary areas that, taken together, encompassed a broad spectrum of the philosophical enterprise. This was a nontrivial undertaking, but the resulting editorial team was wonderfully competent—as you can see for yourself: Helen Beebee, Mario De Caro, Miranda Fricker, Peter Graham, Brad Hooker, Susan Sauvé Meyer, David Rasmussen, and Tad Schmalz.

In December 2013, the APA announced the advent of the Journal, noting that the first issue would appear in 2015 and providing a link to the Journal’s submissions page. The editorial team recognized that, out of the gate, we could not count on receiving large numbers of submissions, so we invited submissions from philosophers we believed would produce papers that exemplified the qualities we were looking for in papers we would publish, as we explained in our guide to authors:

“The impending launch of the Journal of the American Philosophical Association affords a unique opportunity for philosophers around the world to participate in the birth of, not simply another philosophy journal, but a preeminent philosophy journal. Achieving preeminence will require  

• Publishing papers that go out on a limb, papers that start trends rather than merely adding epicycles to going trends.
• Publishing papers from early-career philosophers as well as established philosophers already recognized for their work.
• Publishing papers on topics that draw from and appeal to diverse philosophical constituencies and traditions.
• Publishing readable papers that can be appreciated by philosophers not already steeped in the subject matter.
• Providing a quick turnaround for submissions and the timely publication of accepted papers: no backlogs, no embargos.
• Providing comments to authors aimed at improving papers and not merely singling out reasons for rejection.

Some existing journals satisfy one or more of these conditions, but few, maybe none, satisfy them all. The editors are dedicated to the idea that the world does not need yet another philosophy journal; the world needs a philosophy journal that serves philosophers by providing a venue for fresh, innovative, accessible scholarship. Please join with the APA, the editorial team, Cambridge University Press, and the Editor in making the debut of the Journal of the American Philosophical Association a resounding success.”

I elaborated these themes in an editorial published in the first issue, excerpted here:

“You hold in your hands—or perhaps are viewing online—the first of four issues of the inaugural volume of the Journal of the American Philosophical Association. The Journal was inspired by the idea that the time had come for the American Philosophical Association to sponsor a journal serving the interests of the philosophical community worldwide, a fully generalist journal dedicated to publishing philosophically compelling articles in a timely manner.

The Journal was brought into being by the APA’s Board of Officers, chaired by Michael Bratman, with the guidance of a seven-member ad hoc APA committee that met during 2012–13. In December 2013 the Journal was officially announced and began accepting papers. The Committee’s aim was to create a home for work with the greatest potential value and impact across the discipline, a journal defined by its articles’ quality, diversity, and liveliness, a journal that could serve as a model of academic publishing.

Thus constituted, the Journal encompasses the aspirations of philosophers from varied philosophical backgrounds that characterize the APA. Think of the Journal as affording you the reader a unique opportunity to participate in the establishment of, not simply another philosophy journal, but a preeminent philosophy journal. Every member of the APA will receive printed copies of all four issues of our first volume. This means that almost 10,000 philosophers will have print versions of papers in those issues on their desks, an impressive figure unmatched in the contemporary philosophical universe.

In reflecting on what it would take to create a platform that would attract papers of the highest quality in all areas of philosophy we became convinced that the prevailing model of submission, evaluation, and publication is unwieldy and inefficient, that it can stifle unconventional papers, papers that take chances, papers that go out on a limb: interesting papers. The problem stems in part from pressures on junior faculty—and, increasingly, on graduate students—to add publications to their CVs. This results in numbers of submissions that can overwhelm the editorial process, especially the time-honored mechanism for evaluating submitted work. Referees are told, in effect, ‘find reasons to reject this paper’, and respond with reports that focus on all that an author might have done but did not do, citing positions or people not discussed and potential objections not addressed. The upshot is authors’ hedging their bets by including tedious surveys of the literature and preemptive maneuvers designed to foreclose every imaginable objection. Too often this results in papers featuring a single interesting idea embedded in a ponderous defensive exercise, papers written by committee.

We ask referees to refrain from nit picking and directing authors to the work of others when this would likely result in a less interesting paper. The ideal report comprises an assessment of the submission—the referee’s considered opinion on its significance and quality—together with a few helpful comments for the author. The aim is to make refereeing less onerous and reports more useful to authors, and to encourage the publication of papers that transform discussion rather than papers that merely add an epicycle to an established treatment of some well-worn topic.

It is not easy to change the culture, however, so, despite our best efforts, we will undoubtedly turn back deserving papers. Any editor will tell you that, as hard as it is to evaluate a paper on a subject that falls outside your immediate area of expertise, it is even harder to evaluate referee reports on papers addressing such subjects. In the Journal’s case, this is mitigated by a stellar team of specialist associate editors, and a growing number of consulting editors.”

Let me pause for a moment and say something about refereeing. The burden of refereeing is not shared equally. Some do more than their fair share; some do none at all (while expecting others to referee their own submissions to journals and publishers). A note that accompanied invitations to referee sought to align our expectations of referees with the Journal’s broader aims:

“Paper refereeing is almost always a thankless task. The editorial team of the Journal of the American Philosophical Association hopes to streamline the process in a way that benefits both authors and referees.

The Journal aims to publish papers only of the highest quality. This means that we will reject many very good papers. You should bear this in mind when you review a submission. Recommend papers only when they stand out. In general, we hope to avoid papers that

• embed an interesting point in a lengthy discussion of the literature or argue preemptively against every possible objection;
• simply add an epicycle to a well-known thesis;
• are needlessly technical or introduce gratuitous formalism;
• are accessible only to specialists steeped in the topic.

The editors have a preference for papers that go out on a limb, that exhibit daring, that challenge the status quo, papers that defend surprising conclusions, even when the author’s arguments are not watertight or otherwise impervious to criticism. We rely heavily on reviewers’ judgment and good sense in this regard.

Referee reports can be succinct. Notes to authors should, where possible, be constructive and encouraging, not simply a long list of reasons for rejecting the paper. The ‘Revise and Resubmit’ option should be used only in exceptional cases. If you select this option, you should be prepared to review the revised paper. Please do not suggest revisions that would require significant additions. We have a 10,000-word limit (including notes and references), but the expectation is that the average paper will be in the 8,000-word range.

The Journal operates with a policy of ‘triple anonymity’: editors and referees do not know who the author of a paper is, and the author does not know the referee’s identity. Please do not agree to referee a paper if you know its author.”

Now, back to the inaugural editorial’s concluding remarks.

“The editorial team is dedicated to the idea that the world does not need yet another philosophy journal; the world needs a philosophy journal that serves philosophers by providing a venue for trend-setting—as distinguished from trendy—papers.

We are working together because we believe that, if we can get the Journal right, we will have demonstrated that philosophers of every stripe can engage seriously without the kind of pettiness and cronyism that currently color the discipline. We are united in the conviction that the Journal will be a force for the good.

Our challenge is to ensure that a journal purporting to represent the full gamut of topics and approaches to philosophy succeeds. We will inevitably make mistakes. We will inevitably offend the easily offended. We believe, however, that we will achieve these goals by offering a vehicle for fresh, accessible scholarship governed by an editorial process designed to expedite decisions and have papers in print quickly.

Please help us. You can do this by submitting your most interesting work to the Journal—think of that paper you’ve wanted to write but for which the occasion hasn’t arisen—and by playing along with us if you are called upon to referee. (And please see the call for submissions at the back of this issue.) Together we stand a chance of overcoming entrenched antipathies, and nurturing fresh approaches to serious philosophical topics.”

I hope and believe that our efforts have paid off, an undertaking that would have been unobtainable without the hard work of everyone on the editorial team, our referees who persevered in the thankless task of reading, commenting on, and making recommendations individual papers. Nor would it have been possible without the marvellous support provided by Sally Hoffmann, the Journal’s representative at Cambridge University Press, our publisher.

Since January 2023, the Journal has been in the capable hands of Heather Battaly, who, with the invaluable support of an impressive cadre of associate editors, remains committed to the Journal’s standards and values.

John Heil, Inaugural Editor
Journal of the American Philosophical Association

The post The Birth of a Journal first appeared on Blog of the APA.

Read the full article which is published on APA Online (external link)