“I’ve heard individuals joke on greater than a few events that publishing a guide is the way in which to get round Reviewer 2 on the journals.”
An assistant professor of philosophy has a question in regards to the relative career-value of books and articles.
He writes:
After I was a grad scholar, I considered the publication of a guide as the top of publication status. Publishing just a few articles in journals like Noûs, Ergo, and many others. was an achievement, however publishing a guide with Oxford College Press, Routledge, and many others. was much more spectacular. My anecdotal impression is that this type of view is widespread.
I suppose I’m questioning whether or not it’s true that this type of view is widespread, and in that case, whether or not it must be.
The latter query has been particularly salient to me since turning into an assistant professor and talking with a number of different assistant professors over the past couple of years. All of us have, since turning into assistant professors, been invited by varied presses to publish with them. (These are profs from every kind of establishments, by the way in which). And many people have additionally seen in offering referee stories to such presses, that the barrier to publishing with them is kind of low—a lot decrease than a collection of papers with prime journals. Certainly, I’ve heard individuals joke on greater than a few events that publishing a guide is the way in which to get round Reviewer 2 on the journals. All of this makes me assume that maybe books shouldn’t be held in such excessive regard if they’re. However are they? And may they be in that case?
What are your impressions, readers?
