Over the past few years we have seen some startling progress from Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-3, and some of those paying attention to these developments, such as philosopher John Symons (University of Kansas), believe that they pose an imminent threat to teaching and learning (for those who missed its inclusion in the Heap of Links earlier this summer, yo..
“Most contemporary philosophy writing is just bad writing… How did things go so wrong? It’s tempting to declare that philosophers are simply terrible writers, but I think that’s a mistake…” (more…)
Writer B.D. McClay was prompted to ask the question in the above headline by remarks from Jason Stanley (Yale), who on Twitter said, “I would regard myself as an abject failure if people are still not reading my philosophical work in 200 years. I have zero intention of being just another Ivy League professor whose work lasts as long as they are alive.” (more…)
What are the best opening lines of philosophy articles and books?
Wouldn’t it be useful to have a group of people read your book manuscript and have a discussion about it with you?
A pair of philosophers have developed what they call “the first centralized forum for discussion of all papers uploaded on PhilArchive and PhilPapers.” (more…)
The first issue of The Raven: A Magazine of Philosophy has been published. (more…)
A philosopher putting together resources for a professionalization seminar for graduate students in his department writes in with concerns about the “ethics of credit” in philosophy. (more…)
A professor at a liberal arts college writes in because she has seen signs of confusion in her department about “what is manageable or expected” in the number and kind of assignments students have to complete in a course “when the professor does the grading.” (more…)
When an author gets all fairly positive referee reports (acceptance, conditional acceptance) on a manuscript, but the editors decide not to accept it, what kind of explanation, if any, is it reasonable for the author to expect? (more…)
Stylistic norms for writing affect philosophers’ professional prospects in unfair ways, and what one thinks should be done about this may be tied to one’s conception of what philosophy is supposed to do. (more…)
“I realized I couldn’t be what the officials were expecting of me. You got to put that in your head so they can’t break you. They want to break you. If you’re not broken, they say you’re crazy.” (more…)
The following guest post* was prompted by last week’s inquiry about whether philosophy papers with more jargony titles get cited less. Maximilian Noichl (University of Vienna), whose work has been featured at Daily Nous before, turned to the question over the past weekend, and describes his findings below. (more…)
A study of papers published in academic science journals on the topic of “cave science” found that “papers containing higher proportions of jargon in their titles and abstracts were cited less frequently by other researchers.” (more…)
“There has to be a balance between the formal and the conversational.” (more…)
In his 2013 book, The Limits of Kindness, Caspar Hare (MIT) includes a brief “stylistic note” that gets across an important lesson for academic writers: don’t overestimate the familiarity of your readers with specialist terminology—even when the intended readers are others in your discipline. (more…)
In the following guest post,* Eric Schwitzgebel, professor of philosophy at the University of California, Riverside, shares his “possibly quirky advice” about publishing in philosophy journals. (more…)
“How to self-cite without giving away your identity? I’ve seen two ways of doing it over the years. One is great, and one is really frustrating. We should all stop doing the frustrating one.” (more…)
You may not like it when your article is rejected from a journal, but at least sometimes you get something good out of it: criticism. (more…)