Some Of Our Books


« Kant, Well-being, and Happiness | Main | Enjoying immorality for its own sake. »

March 10, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

My understanding is that the Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, a pretty nice journal for legal theory and political philosophy, also at least is willing to consider submissions submitted elsewhere. (I assume that this is to let it get some articles that would otherwise only be submitted to law reviews.) Details should be checked, of course, but it's a nice journal and worth keeping in mind.

You're right, Matt, the CJLJ states:

The Journal does not disallow multiple submissions (typically) from the USA, but the editors wish to be informed.

I assume this is just an awkward way to say that the Journal allows multiple submissions!

As I'm sure you know, law journals typically do allow multiple submissions. (JESP has had some papers submitted that were simultaneously submitted to law journals, but so far we have not accepted any.) It will be interesting to see whether JESP and Public Reason get any simultaneous submissions, and if so how many.

It's great to see another open-access journal! I think the idea of accepting submissions that are also under review elsewhere is a good idea. However, the need for this would be greatly reduced if more journals had the kind of quick decision process that, e.g., The Imprint reports.

Thanks for posting the info.

"It will be interesting to see how interested parties, particularly referees, respond to this development."

Are referees really "interested parties" in some relevant sense?

Fritz, you ask:

Are referees really "interested parties" in some relevant sense?

The idea was supposed to be that evaluating simultaneous submissions will require simultaneous refereeing. Assuming that at least some of that simultaneous refereeing is done by distinct referees, there will be (even) more refereeing work to be done. And assuming that at least some of the simultaneously submitted manuscripts will be accepted, some will be withdrawn from consideration, presumably in some cases after the referee has started working on the manuscript. As I mentioned, while I don't really have a problem with it, in the linked post attached to "Some" in the original post Michael Rosen wrote, regarding book manuscripts: "Reading a manuscript for a publisher is time-consuming, difficult, often dispiriting (no one likes having to say negative things) and very poorly recompensed. Those of us who do it do so because we think we owe it to the profession. The idea that some other poor schmuck is doing the same thing at the same time on the same manuscript is hard to bear." Whether or not you agree with this, the more basic thought was that having more work, and new work that might be for naught, creates an interest.

(Of course, I'm using "interested parties" in the colloquial sense, not as a term of art.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ethics at PEA Soup

PPE at PEA Soup

Like PEA Soup

Search PEA Soup


  • Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in any given post reflect the opinion of only that individual who posted the particular entry or comment.