Of course, I want to frame the foil’s arguments in the best possible light.As far as going back and citing things, that’s usually the last stage of the process.
That may be a sign that you’re a well-read scholar or it may be a sign that you’re trying too hard.
I’ve never had an issue with let’s say referees saying, “well you didn’t cite enough stuff.” There may be other issues that I’ve had with papers that referees have found, but it’s not been a matter of the citation.
It’ll only really make sense to focus on one author’s topic if you are following up on an article within the particular issue of a journal, but that’s usually a smaller article, not a feature-length kind of 20 page thing.
Bill Glod: What I try to do is extract the quotations from the articles that I’m going to address, especially the specific quotations that will be my biggest challenge.
So there’s no sort of hard-and-fast set of criteria for determining when is this ready to go out, but I would say that you shouldn’t tinker with a paper endlessly.
Once it feels roughly finished, then I think that’s when you should submit it.Jeanne Hoffman interviews IHS’s Philosophy Program Officer, Dr.Bill Glod to get his thoughts on getting papers written in the first place, what to do when the editors of a journal are taking months to make a decision, and how to go about revising and resubmitting your paper if necessary.There may be other issues that I’ve had with papers that referees have found, but it’s not been a matter of the citation.One thing I try to avoid is populating every footnote with as many citations as I can find.Jeanne Hoffman: Today is the first installment in our new series on the Journal Submission Process for each discipline. Bill Glod to talk about the Journal Submission Process in Philosophy. Bill Glod: Well thanks for having me, I’m glad I just had to talk about Philosophy, I was starting to plan … I may not know about Philosophy either, but we’ll see. There’s no holds barred on what is actually a crazy idea. I’ll scrap most of them, of course, but they will give me somewhat of an idea, sort of how the paper, the direction it’s going to go and some of the particulars, hopefully, original insights.I don’t think you can have much originality without getting crazy stuff down first. I prefer writing so much more, and so I usually, when I’m planning about a particular paper I want to write, a journal article usually, I want to limit my engagement to about two inter-lockers.I want somebody’s input on whether I’m making an original argument or not.Bill Glod: Sometimes it comes from somebody, external pair of eyes who can say “this looks ready to ship off” and sometimes it’s just once you’ve been doing this long enough, it’s sort of an intuition that you have.Then let the referees be the unpaid research assistants.If you spend so much time tinkering with the paper that the marginal benefits of that are far outweighed by the cost of it sitting there gathering dust on your desk. If there are substantive changes that need to be made to your argument, good referees will be able to highlight that.