Poll: Most Preferred Means for Promoting Academic Work


A reader requested a poll to help him determine how to promote and share his work online and make contact with other academics with similar interests. Let’s do it! Which of the following would you recommend? I know one popular answer might be “all of them,” but that’s not an option. You can select two, though.


Thanks!

(Not as fun as The Most Important Philosophy Poll Poll, I know. But possibly more useful!)
pencils block

Disputed Moral Issues - Mark Timmons - Oxford University Press
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SF
SF
8 years ago

I’m Facebook friends with few of the academics doing similar work, so I always post there

Thom Brooks
8 years ago

Surprised both Twitter and SSRN (Social Science Research Network) not options…

Thom Brooks
Reply to  Justin Weinberg
8 years ago

I use Twitter more than about anything else – and most of the people I follow are not famous philosophers (or political scientists or legal academics). But maybe that’s not the norm for most people.

Felipe De Brigard
Felipe De Brigard
8 years ago

I think that there may be differences in the use of Academia vs ResearchGate as a function of your academic discipline. In my experience, scientists are more likely to use ResearchGate while philosophers and other academics in the humanities tend to prefer Academia.com.

Alan white
Alan white
8 years ago

As you mention above Justin, blogging. As an isolated philosopher in a department scattered across the state the old blog The Garden of Forking Paths and it’s excellent successor Flickers of Freedom rejuvenated my career-long interests in metaphysics and action theory. I owe much to them.

Alan white
Alan white
Reply to  Alan white
8 years ago

Grumble. That’s an autocorrected “it’s”. Jeez.

David Wallace
David Wallace
8 years ago

In philosophy of science, philsci-archive.pitt.edu is pretty much the universal route.

C
C
8 years ago

“The referee reports I write when I’ve rejected a paper” – Referee #2