Links
Several years ago, I decided to insulate my submissions from my on-line drafts somewhat by using dummy, placeholder titles for the drafts. That way a search on the title phrase wouldn't immediately turn up my paper. I later learned that this fostered duplicate records in automatic databases, like Google Scholar. So I don't have a general policy anymore.
I stick by the general conclusion of the old post, however, which is that the advantages of posting on-line make it worth doing even if there is some danger to the integrity of blind review. I am not certain on whether the advantage of avoiding redundancy in Google Scholar's database (from using the same title for the draft and submitted paper) outweighs the extra risk to the integrity of blind review.
[ add comment ] ( 4090 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink
Today I was talking with Christy Mag Uidhir about a paper of his that was 13,000 words. With some struggle, he had brought it down to 11K. It just couldn't be any shorter without shedding important arguments!
Prior to the last year, I had never found myself in this situation. Then, last Fall, I found myself in the midst of writing a paper which was already 15K words even though I wasn't quite done with the introduction. I realized that I was not writing a paper at all, but a book. The problem was not making it short enough to hook a journal editor, but long enough to hook a publisher.
This musing prompted me to update my list of published articles by length. This is something I did back in 2007 and 2009. Without planning on it, it has become a biennial tradition.
Numbers are in thousands of words, given to two significant digits.
Italics indicate an item that's new since the last time I did this. Even ignoring the book, I do seem to be getting more verbose. This is underscored by looking ahead and including a paper which is under review: the longest article I've written by a fair margin.
An asterisk* indicates a co-authored article. (The long one at least has that excuse.)
10. Why novel...* (under review)
8.2 Reid's defense... (2008)
8.0 On trusting... (2009)
7.8 Realist ennui...* (2005)
6.9 The Identical Rivals...* (2010)
6.9 Is there an elephant...* (2007)
6.7 Drakes, seadevils... (forthcoming)
6.7 Inductions, red herrings... (2010)
6.5 Reckoning the shape... (2005)
6.0 Historical individuals... (forthcoming)
5.9 Distributed cognition... (2007)
5.5 Demonstrative induction... (2008)
5.1 Williamson on knowledge...* (2003)
5.0 Art concept pluralism* (2011)
4.8 Miracles, trust... (2011)
4.6 Background theories... (2005)
4.4 Peirce... (2005)
4.2 The price of insisting... (2004)
3.9 Success, truth... (2003)
3.3 Un... Identical Rivals (2003)
2.9 Mag Uidhir... (2008)
2.7 Whats new... (2006)
2.6 Hormone research... (2005)
1.7 Reid's dilemma... (2004)
1.4 Philosophy of Science in the 21st.... (2010)
1.3 Early response... (2008)
UPDATE: After Matt's comment (below), I realized that I have already put the title on the web. It's listed as a paper under review on my CV. So there's no reason to be cagey about the title here.
[ 1 comment ] ( 13577 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink
Our university e-mail is now being contracted out to Microsoft. For no sensible reason, the changeover was made in the middle of the semester. It should have made no difference to me, since I don't actually use the UA mail service. I do have an @albany address, but it forwards elsewhere.
Yet... About a week ago, the forwarding instruction was lost. E-mail to my @fecundity address was still getting through, so I didn't notice a change. Messages sent to @albany just piled up unanswered on the Microsoft server. I discovered this yesterday. Although there is no straightforward way to get the actual messages from the Outlook account onto my computer, I think I've responded to all of them appropriately. And I've given the system a suitable purgative, which should have e-mail forwarding as before.
For anyone who didn't get a response or who got a delayed response because of this - Sorry!
[ add comment ] ( 1150 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink
Today marks the end of this blog's year six.
The total content of the blog (just prior to this entry) stood at 116,034 words in 244 entries. Of those, 14,936 words in 41 entries were added in the last year. An decrease from the prior year in number of words for the year, but an increase in number of entries. So... brevity is on the rise.
[ add comment ] ( 4064 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink
Thinking about 'natural kinds' in the 19th-century has me reading obscure criticisms of Mill. In an 1859 review, James Martineau writes:
The great mass of Mr. Mill's labour has been devoted to what may be termed the middle ground of human thought, below the primary data which reason must assume, and short of the applied science which has practice for its end. At the upper limit shunning the original postulates of all knowledge, and at the lower its concrete results, he has addressed himself to its intermediary processes, and determined the methods for working out derivative but still general truths.
Over the subsequent pages, Martineau sharpens this into the complaint that Mill's work fails as philosophy. He's wrong about that. I like his description of the middle ground, though, and it seems like a fair thing to say about Mill.
It also gestures at what I think general philosophy of science can do well, where it is most successful and most satisfying. There are parallels to be drawn to Robert Merton's conception of the middle range. I will leave such broader musings for some point in the future, when I feel confident enough to draw those threads together.
[ add comment ] ( 3760 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink
<<First <Back | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | Next> Last>>