Hypatia editors have sent us an updated version of the survey of alternative venues for publishing originally posted at the Hypatia website here (pdf); since that link isn’t yet updated, we are posting the full updated survey here, as a separate page on our blog with a tab that will remain above until the new Hypatia editors update the old webpage or make a new one. We will provide an update when the Hypatia website is updated or changed, but in the meantime, enjoy!
CFP: Judgement and Embodiment (Special Issue of PhaenEx) December 13, 2012
PhaenEx: journal of existential and phenomenological theory and culture
Call for papers for special edited issue: Judgement and Embodiment
(volume 9.3, to be published in Fall/Winter 2014)
Editors: Alexis Shotwell (Carleton University) and Ada Jaarsma (Mount Royal University)
Feminist judgements about embodiment tend to be normative, identifying and undermining social prescriptions about bodily practices that limit flourishing and intensify oppression; conversely, feminist judgements are also often pragmatic, modeling forms of embodiment that aspire to emancipatory ways of living in the world. Embodiment can be seen, then, as an object of critique as well as a method of transformative critique, and both aspects of embodiment are animated by modes of judgement. Bodily practices that align with feminist resistance may make new capacities of judgement possible: for example, the cultivation of senses that are allergic to prejudicial forms of power and are attuned to non-oppressive relational dynamics. Might we affirm judgement itself as an embodied practice? Such a claim would be somewhat at odds with prevailing liberal scripts about judgement which warn us that judging another’s bodily practices might be impolite or impolitic. Existential and phenomenological approaches to critical theory call such liberal formulations into question, making way for more open-ended and positive conceptions of the intersections of judgement with embodiment.
This special issue will elaborate and explore the problem of embodiment, specifically from the vantage point of feminist concerns about domination and discrimination, on the one hand, and creative and affirmative becoming, on the other. We are especially interested in articles that reflect on particular—or even exemplary—cases that stage the problem of judgement and embodiment.
Deadline: September 5, 2013
Papers should be prepared for anonymous review, and they can be sent to Alexis Shotwell (Alexis_Shotwell@carleton.ca) or Ada Jaarsma (firstname.lastname@example.org).
PhaenEx is an electronic journal affiliated with the Canadian based international Society for Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture / Théorie et culture existentialistes et phénoménologiques (EPTC/TCEP).
Our intent is to provide an interdisciplinary forum for original research in theory or culture from existential or phenomenological perspectives, broadly construed. This includes but is not restricted to philosophical and critical inquiries related to art, literature, science, technology, popular culture, religion, gender and sexuality, applied moral issues and social relations, as well as the history of continental philosophy itself. Submissions in both French and English are encouraged and all submissions are subject to peer review.
PhaenEx is a bi-annual publication: there is a Spring/Summer Open Issue, and a Fall/Winter Special Topics Issue. For each Open Issue the Editorial Executive welcomes submissions from authors both in and outside EPTC/TCEP. Typically, the Special Topics Issue is derived from a recent EPTC/TCEP panel session. Submissions are not limited to panel participants.
PhaenEx is indexed regularly in the Philosopher’s Index and is registered with the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).
Hypatia suspends new submissions to July 2013 December 2, 2012
From the Hypatia website:
MORATORIUM ON HYPATIA SUBMISSIONS: January 15 to July 15, 2013
Manuscript submissions have grown dramatically in the last few years, and we’re building up a substantial backlog of accepted article. So, with regret, the editors have decided that we must temporary suspend all new submissions. This does not affect the resubmission of manuscripts accepted with revisions, or Diversity Prize submissions. For the details, please see the full notice here.
Special Issue on Feminist Aesthetics July 16, 2012
A special issue on Feminist Aesthetics, published by n.paradoxa: international feminist art journal, includes intriguing international contributions. Canadian readers, you might find the interview with Feminist Art Gallery founders Allyson Mitchell and Deirdre Logue of special interest. Although not for profit, access to most of the contents is not free, with the exception of the editorial, an excerpt of which is below:
What is feminist aesthetics? To some, it arises in a close reading of contemporary women artists’ works with attention to feminist theory. To others, feminist aesthetics represents a model guiding the production of works, exhibition strategies and the presentation of feminist art. While to others again, exploring the relationship between aesthetics and politics becomes a means to re-activate a new set of relationships between art and activism, and through these means produce new forms of feminist politics through their practices. These three key ideas are explored in the close readings of different women artists’ projects in this volume.
APA: Best Practices in Journal Publishing July 8, 2012
UPDATED: It was brought to my attention that the Handbook on Placement was similarly unsung and behind a subscription-only firewall. I’ve added that to the Publications page of the Status of Women site (linked to below).
I’ve posted this on the offsite webpage of the Committee on the Status of Women:
The May 2012 issue of the APA Proceedings ( Vol. 85, No. 5) includes a statement on Best Practices for Journals on pp. 59-63, which we excerpt here [full text linked there] for those who cannot access the Publications available on the Members Only site of APAonline.
This was drafted by many members including those on the Committee on the Status and Future of the Profession, and journal editors such as Thom Brooks and Carol Gould, and includes the following sections:
I Guidelines for Journals
II Guidelines for Authors
III Guidelines for Referees
IV Editorial Practices Related to Copyright and Publication.
Thanks to all those who worked on and deliberated over the Statement!
On Getting a Job (and Publications!) in Philosophy June 7, 2012
A reader (thanks TB!) directs us to a typically lively discussion that occurred over at The Philosophy Smoker at the end of April concerning Carolyn Dicey Jennings’s data on hiring in Philosophy in the past year. Dicey Jennings reports that
…overall prospects are at around 24% chance of getting any job, 17% chance of getting any tenure-track job, 6% chance of getting a ranked tenure-track job.
…one’s overall chance of getting any job (post-doc or tenure-track) coming from an NRC ranked institution may be as high as 51%, 39% for any tenure-track job, and 11% for a ranked tenure-track job.
if you are a woman from an NRC ranked department looking for a ranked job, your chances might be around 9%, whereas if you are looking for a tenure-track job in general they at are around 44%. If you are a woman from an NRC ranked school looking for a post-doc, be advised that only 15% of ranked women achieved post-docs this year (5 out of 34 ranked post-doc achievers), whether or not the post-doc was itself ranked. Because of that fact, the chance of a woman from an NRC ranked department getting a tenure-track job or post-doc is about the same as for a man from these departments: 51%.
The comment thread is worth a look too. The discussion ranges from Dicey Jennings’s methodology to differentials in publishing rates between men and women (as reported by Dicey Jennings). Our reader highlights as especially interesting the following comment:
There are a lot of things that can affect publication rates that
aren’t just straightforward discrimination by editors (though 8:24
does target an important problem for women – and, by association, men
- working in certain areas). Feeling encouraged and like one’s ideas
are worth publishing can contribute greatly to publishing rates. It is
often very hard to know oneself whether one’s ideas are worthwhile, or
just “obvious”. I can really only speak from my own point of view on
this, but this means I end up publishing only things that seem really
clearly worthwhile to me (although I’m not a perfect judge of such
things). Which means I pass up on publishing things that are probably
publishable somewhere, which would up my publication rate…but that I
don’t think would make me a better candidate.
As our reader points out, the above comment is especially timely “in light of the one year anniversary of the APA [Mentoring Project] , which was focused on supporting increasing publications.”
philoSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism September 14, 2011
Call for Submissions and Invitation to Subscribe
SUNY Press is pleased to announce a new biannual journal: philoSOPHIA, a philosophical journal that intertwines the rich traditions and conceptual resources of continental philosophy and feminist theory.
The journal is edited by Elaine Miller and Emily Zakin, both Associate Professors of Philosophy at Miami University of Ohio.
The inaugural issue features essays that explore animal imagery in Freud’s works, specifically with reference to the elision of the figure of the sister and the daughter in Freud’s works; argue that contemporary deconstructive accounts of corporeal vulnerability can be illuminated by Beauvoir’s account of the ethical problems posed by the experiential ambiguities of violence; bring Irigaray and Chodorow together to compare and partially synthesize their visions of the maternal and of mother-daughter relations; trace Kristeva’s engagement with Plato; and argue that Beauvoir’s account of aging illuminates not only becoming woman, but also an unbecoming of masculinity.
The editors invite submissions from scholars who work at the intellectual and philosophical intersections of continental philosophy and feminist theory in the hope of opening a wider dialogue around a diverse array of questions concerning sexual difference, sexual identity, women writing and being written about in philosophy, and the interrogation of canonical texts.
Please direct editorial questions to Dr. Miller (millerep [at] muohio [dot] edu) and Dr. Zakin (zakinea [at] muohio [dot] edu).
For more details on the journal and subscription information, visit www.sunypress.edu.
What Analysis is doing about what it’s like July 8, 2011
They’re moving to a triple-anonymous review process. This decision was made because the committee became concerned about the potential for implicit bias in the review process.
Change *is* possible, and sometimes even change in the right direction! Nice to have something to counter-balance the bad news from economics. And especially nice to have the good news coming from philosophy.
Request from an isolated feminist May 15, 2011
Request from an isolated feminist:
I could use some words of wisdom. I just can’t face the task of revising an article on which I’ve got the most breathtakingly condescending comments. I can’t seem to keep going, but trust me when I say that my upcoming performance review will not be adequate if I don’t have a peer-reviewed journal article soon. I’m very close to being published with this one, and if I could just get this revision done, I’d be adequate! However, every time I open up the document, read the comments and try to respond to them or change my paper, I just feel sick. I want to crawl in bed, quit my job, admit defeat. The thing is, all the condescending comments are on the feminist material. Today I seriously considered just abdicating on the argument, just rewriting the whole paper to say the comments are right, and feminism is wrong but thanks so much for recommending that I read longstanding classics in the field. I was on the point of reversing my entire view in order to get published, but I cannot do it. What do feminist philosophers do who have been in this position? How do you carry on? How do you finish that work? Most importantly, how do you punch through the paralysis of just reading the comments over and over? I’m really stuck, and I feel like a failure.
Success stories welcome. I hope someday I have one to send along myself, after all this is over.
My own suggestion would be to write a cover letter very politely explaining why the comments on the feminism bit are wrong, but thanking the reviewer for showing you that there’s an important misunderstanding to be cleared up. Put in a footnote calling attention to the possible misunderstanding and showing why it’s a mistake, and note in your cover letter that you’ve done so– and that you think this improves the paper.
Then send it off, and pour yourself a stiff drink.
In other circumstances, you might just withdraw the paper and send it somewhere else– but it sounds like you’re too pressed for time. There’s also the option of writing the editor and explaining why you think the referee is incompetent. But I know people who have done this only to learn that the editor was the referee, and given that the editor’s almost certain to know the author’s identity it’s very high-risk.