What venues are there for short papers? 
I have written several papers recently which have turned out to be a bit under 3,000 words each. I could make them longer, of course, but I think they address everything they need to address in order to make the point that I want them to make.

To extend one of these papers, I'd have to widen its scope. Instead of being a short paper that gives a concise argument for P, it would probably become a longer paper that gives arguments for P and Q with implications for R. Worse still, it could become a paper primarily about Q with a section addressing P. But I really think that P is important enough to have a paper written about it, even if I can make the point in 3,000 words!

But where can one submit a paper of this length, without having referees either reject it or insist that it should be resubmitted in a longer form?

Obviously Analysis, but hopefully there are other options. I searched the web for advice and turned up blog discussions from 2007 at Leiter Reports and at Thoughts, Arguments, and Rants. A few comments:

1. The discussion is a bit confused because the original question is posed about "discussion notes", which might mean either short articles or articles that are a direct response to just one other article. I have something in the works that's a discussion piece in the second sense, but it's comfortably long. The two short items are more general.

2. Brian Weatherson suggests that lots of short items should just appear as blog posts, especially if they are just one-off responses to an article or book. I totally agree. Just blog it and move on is good general advice for short items of the 'Some Philosopher Is Wrong' variety.

3. In addition to Analysis, people recommend Phil Quarterly and Dialectica. So there are some options, at least.

4. The commenters on both posts are enthusiastic about the idea that there should be a new journal aimed at short pieces, an on-line or even open-access affair after the fashion of Analysis. One commenter even says that there is something like that in the works but he's not at liberty to share. I suspect, since that was 2007, that it never came to be.

Do any of ya'll have better or more current advice? The three venues I listed above give me someplace to start, but perhaps the landscape has changed in the six years since those blog posts.

[ 3 comments ] ( 5793 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
More about brevity, this time with pictures 
Because the last entry wasn't trivial enough, I've rendered the data as a chart.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is the worth of a picture where the y-axis is thousands of words?

[ add comment ] ( 3699 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Brevity update 
My inclination, I like to think, is to write shorter papers rather than longer ones. Several times in the past, reflecting on this has led me to tabulate my papers by length.

It has become a biennial tradition; cf. 2007, 2009, and 2011. So it is about time for an update.

[ 2 comments ] ( 6336 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Two data points on brevity 
Regarding the lengths of things that I've written, the manuscript for the unstably named book on natural kinds is about 75K words. My dissertation was just 43K words.

[ add comment ] ( 3989 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Briefly bibliometric me 
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. (Since it's under review, I've redacted the title.)

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 ] ( 12996 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next> Last>>