Loughborough University, UK, is hiring a lecturer or senior lecturer in philosophy. The call is open, but the department is looking for candidates whose teaching and research speak to PPE, including experimental philosophers.
Applications are possible until August 26, 2026. The job announcement reads:
My department is advertising for a lecturer or senior lecturer in philosophy. This is an open call, but we are looking for someone whose teaching/research interests speak to PPE in some way. (This might include, but is not necessarily limited to, many normative theorists, philosophers of science, experimental philosophers, epistemologists, philosophers of language, and more.) Applications are due by 26 August.
From August 23 to 28, 2027, the 18th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science and Technology (CLMPST 2027) will take place at Kobe University, Japan. One of its twenty-one thematic sections is devoted to empirical and experimental philosophy of science and technology.
Abstracts can be submitted until November 15, 2026. The call reads:
CLMPST is the premier forum on Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science and Technology. Its aim is to bring together active researchers in this broad field. The International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science and Technology (CLMPST) is organized under the auspices of the Division of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science and Technology of the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (IUHPST/DLMPST).
CLMPST has a long history – it started in 1960, and has been held every four years since then in capital cities and/or by leading university centres in this field. Recent previous CLMPST Congresses were held in Buenos Aires (2023), Prague (2019), Helsinki (2015), Nancy (2011), and Beijing (2007). The 2027 edition will take place at Kobe University in Kobe, Japan.
Aims and Scope
As in previous editions, CLMPST 2027 aims to foster connections between the research fields of logic and philosophy of science and technology, as well as research studying the foundations and methodology of science and technology. We are looking forward to having papers and symposia on all topics pertaining to our fields, from mathematical logic to metaphilosophy, from the foundations of the exact sciences to philosophy of the social sciences, from philosophy of technology to historical perspectives on the sciences, presented by researchers from all regions and cultures of the world.
CLMPST 2027 calls for contributed papers and contributed symposia in 21 thematic sections:
A. Logic
A.1 Mathematical Logic
A.2 Philosophical Logic
A.3 Computational Logic and Applications of Logic
A.4 Historical Aspects of Logic
A.5 Educational Aspects of Logic
B. General Philosophy of Science
B.1 Methodology
B.2 Formal Philosophy of Science and Formal Epistemology
B.3 Empirical and Experimental Philosophy of Science and Technology
B.4 Metaphysical Issues in the Philosophy of Science and Technology
B.5 Ethical, Social and Political Issues in the Philosophy of Science and Technology
B.6 Historical Aspects in the Philosophy of Science and Technology
B.7 Educational Aspects of Philosophy of Science and Technology
C. Philosophical Issues of Particular Disciplines
C.1 Philosophy of the Formal Sciences (including Logic, Mathematics, Statistics)
C.2 Philosophy of the Physical Sciences (including Physics, Chemistry, Earth Science, Climate Science)
C.3 Philosophy of the Biological Sciences
C.4 Philosophy of the Biomedical and Health Sciences
C.5 Philosophy of the Cognitive and Behavioural Sciences
C.6 Philosophy of Computing and Computation
C.7 Philosophy of the Humanities and the Social Sciences
C.8 Philosophy of the Applied Sciences and Technology
C.9 Philosophy of Emerging and Interdisciplinary Sciences
The language of the congress is English.
Contributed Papers
Submissions will be made through the EasyChair platform. Please submit an abstract of 500 words, including the references, prepared for anonymous review. Indicate to which congress section you submit the paper (tick the appropriate box). The allocated time for each contributed paper is 30 minutes, including discussion.
Contributed Symposia
Symposia are groups of talks on a common theme. Each symposium consists of four to twelve papers. In EasyChair, please make a submission for (a) the symposium as a whole; and (b) each paper in the symposium (so, for example, for a four-paper symposium, you should make a total of five submissions).
(a) For the symposium as a whole, please provide an abstract with a general description of the format and the topic of the proposed symposium and its significance (up to 500 words), and suggest a symposium chair. If desired, it is acceptable for the symposium organiser to be the chair. Indicate to which congress section you submit the symposium (tick the appropriate box). After the abstract, please list the titles of the talks in the order they should appear at the conference. Please provide the symposium with an acronym, and write this acronym at the beginning of the title of the symposium.
(b) For each paper within a symposium, please submit a 500-word abstract (including references). Indicate to which congress section the symposium belongs. Please write the acronym of the symposium at the beginning of the title of the talk.
Note to symposium organisers: Papers intended to be presented as parts of a symposium must be submitted by their respective authors. Symposium organisers should contact all symposium speakers in advance and make sure that they submit their abstracts by the submission deadline of 15 November 2026.
Although the exact format of symposia is up to the symposium organizers, the allocated time for each symposium paper is 30 minutes.
Important Dates
Submission deadline: November 15, 2026
Notifications of acceptance: Early March 2027
18th CLMPST, Kobe University, Japan: August 23–28, 2027
Ivar Hannikainen and Joshua Knobe are running a study on philosophers’ intuitions about thought experiments and are looking for participants. Taking part takes about five minutes, and all responses are anonymous. Participants who complete the study are shown how philosophers and non-philosophers answered each of the questions.
We are running a quick study on philosophers’ intuitions about certain thought experiments. If you happen to have a moment, it’s available here.
After you take the study, it will give you information about how philosophers and non-philosophers answered each of the questions. All responses are completely anonymous.
On August 20 from 16:30–18:00 (UTC+2), Aleksandr Fadeev (KU Leuven) will talk about “The Voice that Whispers Ideas – Inner Speech, Semiosis, and Insight Problem Solving” in the Inner Speech Colloquium, organized by Jonida Kodra, Daniel Müller, and Mathijs Geurts (University of Osnabrück and Paris Lodron University Salzburg).
The talk can be accessed via Microsoft Teams. The abstract reads:
Inner speech, the internal silent experience of language, plays a central role in human cognition, supporting a range of cognitive processes, including thinking, memory, and self-awareness. Beyond its cognitive functions, its role in the generation and transformation of meaning remains largely underexplored. Drawing on Vygotsky’s theory and Lotman’s semiotic model of autocommunication, the talk discusses a semiotic perspective in which inner speech is understood as a dynamic process of semiosis: socially acquired signs undergo structural, functional, and semantic transformations through internalisation, thereby enabling the emergence of new and personally meaningful formations. From this broader perspective, the talk discusses how phenomenological variations in inner speech may be relevant for understanding processes of meaning transformation.
As an empirical case, we focus on insight problem solving, in which changes in problem representation and semantic restructuring are particularly important. Across a series of experiments, participants solved compound remote associate tasks (CRATs), and reported their inner speech experience after finding solutions, as well as whether solutions emerged through gradual analytical search (non-insight) or via a sudden insight (“Aha!” experience). A mixed-method approach combined open-ended reports, VISQ, semi-structured interviews, and dual-task procedures.
Findings indicate that inner speech is highly prevalent during problem solving but varies across solution types: insight solutions are associated with more condensed and less articulated forms of inner speech, whereas non-insight solutions involve more deliberate and expanded forms. These differences suggest that different modes of problem solving are associated with distinct phenomenological forms of inner speech. The study is discussed in relation to the broader semiotic view of inner speech, suggesting that phenomenological variations may contribute to understanding how meaning transformations unfold and may inform theoretical accounts of inner speech.
Expressions of interest are possible until August 28, 2026. The call reads:
Abstract
Individuating action depends upon how people comprehend value judgements about the consequences of an action to distinguish – or not to distinguish – between them. The question “what is action?” cannot be fully addressed until it is established whether two action descriptions – whether in law, business, insurance policies, or ordinary conversation – refer to the same or different actions. This book approaches the problem of action individuation by arguing for a variantist account, where the moral valence of the consequences of an action plays a foundational role in distinguishing between actions. Actions with bad consequences are associated with the originating act from which the action arises; actions with positive consequences are separate from their originating act. When we consider whether a bad or good consequence is identical to an originating action, the normative valence of the consequences of the action matter. Drawing from an empirical assessment that tests non-philosophers’ intuitions about individuating actions, along with real-world examples, Joseph Ulatowski explores the practical and philosophical significance of how we distinguish between actions.
Author Bio
Joseph Ulatowski is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Assistant Vice-Chancellor of Sustainability at the University of Waikato, Aotearoa New Zealand. Besides Identities of Action, he is the author of Commonsense Pluralism about Truth – An Empirical Defence, co-editor of two forthcoming anthologies: Lynch and His Critics and Experimental Philosophy and Corpus Analysis, as well as special issues of the Asian Journal of Philosophy on cross-cultural analyses of the nature of truth, Synthese on Paul Horwich’s minimalism about truth, and an Australasian Philosophical Review with a lead article on the value of truth in a post-truth era by Gila Sher. His work largely focuses on the nature and value of truth, action theory, and the history of philosophy in Poland.
Overview
The Society for Philosophy of Emotion and the Journal of Philosophy of Emotion (JPE) are organizing a book symposium on Professor Ulatowski book, The Identities of Action: How the Normative Valence of Consequences Matters for Act Evaluation. We are looking for commentators and session chair/guest editor for the SPE’s 2027 Central APA (in-person) affiliated group session, and for a subsequent publication in the Journal of Philosophy of Emotion, including a JPE podcast edition. (No additional work beyond seeing your commentary through to publication with the JPE will be required for the podcast edition.) If you are interested in engaging in a critical discussion of Professor Ulatowski’s book, with the aim of moving forward the discourse on relevant topics highlighted by his book as they relate to the philosophy of emotion, or chairing the APA affiliated group session and guest editing this book symposium, please complete the APA Affiliated Group Session and JPE Book Symposium Interest Form. Because the JPE requires the use of Google workspace tools, you will be required to log-in with a Google account to access the form. If you do not use your Gmail account on a regular basis, we recommend you set your Gmail to forward your emails to the email that you regularly use so you do not miss any correspondence from us. If you are interested in participating as a commentator or session chair/guest editor, please complete the form, which includes uploading a copy of your CV, by August 28, 2026. We will contact you by September 4, 2026, with a decision regarding your expressed interest and any further details.
Society for Philosophy of Emotion
Accepted commentators will be invited to present their commentaries during the in-person book symposium, as a part of a Society for Philosophy of Emotion (SPE)-American Philosophical Association (APA) affiliated group session at the 2027 Central APA, which will be an in-person conference. Commentaries for this book symposium are due to the author six (6) weeks before the SPE-APA session date, and author replies are due (3) weeks before the session date, in accordance with the APA meeting participation guidelines and prior to the due date for the JPE book symposium. Commentators would also be required to register for the 2027 Central APA conference, and be a member of the SPE at the time of their participation (which includes a one-time JPE submission fee waiver). An annual SPE membership is $35, with a discounted rate of $10 for graduate students and underemployed scholars.
Guest editors would be invited to contribute an editorial introduction, including highlighting the significance of the discussions in the book symposium to the relevant scholarly discourses. Information on guest editor responsibilities can be found on the JPE’s Join the Team page. The session chair/guest editor would also be required to register for the 2027 Central APA conference, but they will receive a free one year SPE membership (which includes a one-time JPE submission fee waiver).
Please note that commentators and guest editors who agree to participate in this in-person book symposium will not be eligible for any funding assistance from the APA since only those who are presenting in an APA main program event are eligible for such funding. However, participants can also submit a paper or volunteer to comment on a paper for an APA main program event and apply for APA funding if they are accepted, since APA main program participants are allowed to also participate in affiliated group sessions without any restrictions. Organizers will also be informed to avoid any scheduling conflicts.
Journal of Philosophy of Emotion
Commentaries for the JPE will be due one month after the Society for Philosophy of Emotion (SPE)-American Philosophical Association (APA) affiliated group session for this book symposium. We encourage a diversity of scholars of all ranks who are interested in participating as a commentator to respond to this CFP, provided that they are willing and able to commit to fulfilling the expectations set by the JPE’s submission guidelines and the JPE’s double-anonymous peer review process. Please refer to past issues of the JPE for examples, and all submissions must adhere to the JPE’s style guideline (which includes a Google Doc manuscript template), and note that authors are responsible for providing all necessary DOIs and appropriately formatting their references. All contributors are also responsible for copyediting their own submissions and providing any requested citation information, although the JPE will also conduct a preliminary review and copyedit check of all submissions prior to sending them to peer review. No submission will be sent to peer review without the appropriate formatting, in accordance with the JPE style guidelines. The JPE also requires a submission fee of $35 or you can use your SPE one-time JPE submission fee waiver.
Selection Criteria and Peer Refereeing
Commentators will be selected not only based on their qualifications, but also based on their cooperative compliance and the consideration for the value of diversity and inclusiveness among equally qualified commentators. Potential contributors are also welcome to let us know in their letter of interest in refereeing this book symposium if for some reason they were not invited to contribute a commentary, but would still like to contribute to the book symposium, or if they would rather referee the book symposium. All referees may also choose to be publicly acknowledged in a subsequent winter issue of the JPE. Referee’s will also receive a free membership to the Society for Philosophy of Emotion, which includes a one time author submission fee waiver for the JPE, for the year of their membership.
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Heidelberg University are jointly offering a two-year postdoctoral fellowship in the research project “Political Anger and Democracy – A Philosophical-Empirical Study,” led by Oded Na’aman and Nora Heinzelmann. The post-holder will spend the first year in Jerusalem and the second in Heidelberg.
Applications are possible until August 15, 2026. The announcement reads:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Heidelberg University invite applications for a two-year post-doctoral fellowship, starting 1 October, 2026, or as soon as possible thereafter. The post-holder will spend the first year at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the second year at Heidelberg University. Remote work is not possible. Suitable candidates will have a specialization in philosophy of emotion and political philosophy, as well as experience in using empirical methods. That said, we encourage candidates to apply even if they only roughly meet these requirements.
The post is associated with, and made available through, a research grant from the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (GIF), “Political Anger and Democracy: A Philosophical-Empirical Study” (Principal Investigators: Oded Na’aman, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Nora Heinzelmann, Heidelberg University).
A short description of the research project: With populist movements rising worldwide, democratic erosion has accelerated. Yet while research links inequality, anger, polarization, and democratic decline, the relationship between different types of anger and democracy remains poorly understood. Superficially similar expressions of political anger may have opposite democratic implications: some defend democratic accountability, others undermine legitimate authority. The project develops a normative-empirical matrix that systematically distinguishes between types of political anger and their implications for democratic stability. It integrates philosophical theories of anger with experimental methods from moral psychology: through qualitative interviews, pilot studies, and large-scale validation in both Germany and Israel, the project develops novel measurements of what different expressions of anger are about – their “fitting objects” – and examines how specific anger types relate to democratic attitudes across political contexts. The aim is to provide tools for distinguishing anger that strengthens democracy from anger that undermines it.
The fellowship carries an average yearly salary of approximately 62,000 EUR before tax.
To be eligible, applicants must have received their PhD no more than five years before the start of the position, that is, on or after 1 October, 2021. Candidates who have not yet completed their PhD may apply, provided the degree is conferred before the position begins.
Applications should include a cover letter that explains the relevance of the candidate’s background to the project, a CV, a list of publications, the names and contact details of three referees (whom we may contact for letters of recommendation later in the process), and a sample of written work (a chapter from a monograph or doctoral dissertation or a recent journal article).
Heidelberg University stands for equal opportunities and diversity. Persons with severe disabilities will be given preference if they are equally qualified. Information on job advertisements and the collection of personal data is available at www.uni-heidelberg.de/en/job-market.
From September 8 to 11, 2026, the 6th European Experimental Philosophy Conference will take place at the University of Cagliari, Italy. It opens with the Linguistic Justice Society’s satellite workshop “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Linguistic Justice” on September 8, followed by the main conference from September 9 to 11.
Non-presenters who would like to attend are asked to register by July 31, 2026. The announcement reads:
The 6th European Experimental Philosophy Conference will take place at the University of Cagliari from September 8th to 11th, 2026. It will consist of the Linguistic Justice Society Satellite Workshop “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Linguistic Justice” on September 8th, followed by the main Conference on September 9th–11th.
The event is generously supported by Gian Pietro Storari Funds, Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Fondazione di Sardegna, Esperantic Studies Foundation, Regione Autonoma Sardegna. The program of the entire event is available on the conference website.
The event will be open also to non-presenters. The Satellite Workshop on Linguistic Justice can be attended either online or in person, while the main Conference can be attended only in person. No registration fee is required for either event.
If you plan to attend the Satellite Workshop and/or the main Conference as a non-presenter, please send us an email by July 31st to 6EuroXPhi@gmail.com.
In the email, please specify whether you plan to attend the Satellite Workshop, the main Conference, or both. If you plan to attend the Satellite Workshop, please also let us know whether you will attend online or in person.
The Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics at Jagiellonian University in Kraków is welcoming proposals for ERC Starting Grants.
Expressions of interest are possible until July 10, 2026. The announcement reads:
The Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics (INCET), a research centre within the Faculty of Philosophy at Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland, invites expressions of interest from researchers intending to apply for an ERC Starting Grant in the 2027 call.
We welcome proposals in philosophy, bioethics, philosophy of medicine, political philosophy, experimental philosophy, and related interdisciplinary fields, including projects at the intersection of philosophy and the social sciences, medicine, psychology, law, or data science.
INCET offers a vibrant international research environment and extensive experience in hosting and managing European research grants, including an ERC Starting Grant and multiple Horizon Europe MSCA projects.
Researchers interested in applying with INCET as their host institution are invited to send:
CV, including a list of publications;
short description of the proposed ERC project (1-2 pages).
Expression of interests should be sent no later than July 10, 2026, and will be reviewed on a rolling basis. Early contact is strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time for proposal development and institutional preparation.
Support for Candidates
If selected, candidates will receive support from experienced grant specialists at Jagiellonian University throughout the ERC application process. They will also have an opportunity to obtain detailed feedback on their proposals from INCET researchers. In addition, we plan to organise a dedicated workshop for ERC Starting Grant candidates.
Why INCET?
Internationally recognised research centre in ethics and practical philosophy;
strong record of success in securing European research funding;
dedicated support for ERC proposal development and grant management;
interdisciplinary collaborations across philosophy, medicine, psychology, and other fields;
full integration into the research community of Jagiellonian University, one of the leading research universities in Central Europe;
a dynamic academic environment in Kraków, a historic university city and one of the most attractive cultural destinations in Central Europe.
ERC Starting Grant 2027
ERC Starting Grants support outstanding early-career researchers of all nationalities who are establishing their own independent research programmes. To be eligible for an ERC Starting Grant in the 2027 call for proposals, the applicant must have defended their PhD no more than 10 years before 1 January 2027. More information about eligibility: https://erc.europa.eu/apply-grant/starting-grant
Timeline
Expression of interest submission deadline: 10 July 2026
Review results: 17 July 2026
A workshop for candidates: August 2026
Proposal development and internal review (including possible visits to Kraków): July–October 2026
Internal submission of the first draft: 31 August 2026
Call deadline: 14 October, 2026
Publication of the MSCA PF results: Summer 2027
Estimated project start (if funded): From October 2027
For informal enquiries and applications, please contact: incet@uj.edu.pl
Organized by Eugen Fischer, Joanna Demaree-Cotton, and James Andow, the “XPHI UK Work in Progress Workshop Series” continues. Anyone interested in presenting something can contact the organizers. They write:
We are delighted to announce a call for abstracts for the next series of UK XPHI Online. This is a monthly online workshop devoted to discussion of work in progress in experimental philosophy (broadly construed). We feature work from all areas of experimental philosophy, by researchers at all career stages, from the UK and all over the world. The workshop meets once a month on Teams, typically the second Wednesday of each month (16:00–18:00 UK time), for a two-hour session that typically features two talks (each 40 minutes plus 15 minutes Q&A). This call is for a series starting in October 2026. To submit, please email the organizers an abstract of up to 500 words by July 15, 2026, to james.andow@manchester.ac.uk.
Rodrigo Díaz (University of Geneva) Alexander Max Bauer (University of Oldenburg) Joanna Demaree-Cotton (University of Oxford)
Photo by Ahmad Ardity (Pixaby)
If you write experimental philosophy papers, you probably have a paper rejected precisely because it is experimental philosophy. The explicit reason for rejection might have been something direct like “What sort of method are the authors relying on? Is it experimental philosophy? If so, why should psychologists care about it?” or something vague like “The paper does not contain enough in-depth philosophical discussion and argument to be relevant for the general philosophical readership.”1 When thinking about where to (re)submit your paper, you might have wondered which venues welcome experimental philosophy (apart, of course, from the recently-launched journal Experimental Philosophy).
As an experimental philosopher, you might have intuitions (pun intended) about which journals welcome this kind of work, or anecdotal evidence from colleagues. However, as an experimental philosopher, you might also reject putting too much weight on individual intuitions and anecdotical evidence. This is why many of us have kept coming back to Justin Sytsma’s blog post “Publishing in experimental philosophy, part II: Some numbers on where we publish” on The New Experimental Philosophy Blog, which provided data from PhilPapers on the number of experimental philosophy papers published in different journals. Unfortunately, as well as being relatively hard to access since the blog went offline, the post is now about eight years old, and thus may not reflect recent publication trends.
The present post aims to provide updated PhilPapers data on the number of experimental philosophy papers published across different journals and to complement the crowdsourced data compiled on the Where should I publish my x-phi? website.
To examine which journals publish the most experimental philosophy papers, we first exported the complete list of papers within the “Experimental Philosophy” category of PhilPapers. Anyone can do this simply by going to the category page and selecting the relevant option on the right sidebar. The list of papers is the result of PhilPapers’ use of thrawling techniques and crowd-sourcing by its users.2 It is thus important to note that the list is not perfect and likely contains duplicates and miscategorized entries. Nevertheless, it is arguably better than individual intuitions and anecdotal data.
At the time of our analysis, this list contained 3434 entries (for reference, when Justin wrote his blog post, it was a little more than 1000). Going through this by hand would be beyond tedious. Hence, we wrote a little Python script to help us wade through the data. You can take a closer look at it on GitHub. So, if you’d like to do things differently from how we do in the following, you can just go ahead and try it yourself.
So, what does the script actually do? First, it takes the raw text data from PhilPapers and systematically breaks each reference down into its core components: authors, publication year, title, and source. Since the boundary between a paper’s title and its publishing source isn’t always perfectly clear, the script evaluates different punctuation marks as potential split points. It then runs a scoring system on the remaining text to determine if the source is likely to be an academic journal (for an overview of the script’s classifications, see Table 1). The script adds points to this “confidence score” if it detects classic journal patterns, like volume and issue numbers. It also adds points if it spots specific journal-related keywords (such as “ISSN” or “quarterly”). Conversely, it deducts points if it encounters keywords pointing to other publication formats (like “handbook” or “dissertation”). Based on this score, the entry is either classified as a “likely journal”, marked as “other”, or flagged for manual review. Finally, the script assigns each publication to a specific five-year period (e.g., “2001–2005”) and produces a list of the most frequently mentioned journals per time period (see Table 2) as well as two corresponding graphics (see Figures 1 and 2).
Such a – rather complex – automated approach is, of course, far from flawless. We rely on a few heuristics that introduce some pitfalls. For instance, because the parsing mechanism uses regular expressions to look for punctuation boundaries and volume numbers, it can easily get confused. And as explained above, we rely in part on manually curated dictionaries that are far from exhaustive. So, what happens when the script encounters an unmapped source or a weird edge case? It plays it safe and flags it. In this run, 102 entries were classified as “Needs review.” For this blog post, we didn’t manually sift through these entries.
Category
Number
Percent
Likely from a journal
2344
70.86 %
Likely not from a journal
862
26.06 %
Needs review
102
3.08 %
Total
3308
100.00 %
Table 1: Number of sources per category
Despite skipping these entries, the remaining dataset is more than large enough to reveal clear trends. Here is the breakdown of the top 25 journals publishing experimental philosophy over the last two decades:
Rank
Journal
2001–2005
2006–2010
2011–2015
2016–2020
2021–2025
Total
1
Philosophical Psychology
8
22
56
51
38
175
2
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
0
25
39
34
39
137
3
Synthese
7
0
19
60
43
129
4
Cognition
2
14
23
31
29
99
5
Mind & Language
3
28
24
27
10
92
6
Philosophical Studies
1
14
20
23
8
66
7
Cognitive Science
2
0
13
30
19
64
8
Frontiers in Psychology
0
0
9
21
26
56
9
Journal of Cognition and Culture
1
29
9
3
4
46
10
Journal of Business Ethics
9
17
5
12
2
45
11
Philosophy Compass
0
10
17
8
5
40
12
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
2
6
16
11
2
37
13
Analysis
6
10
3
9
7
35
14
Consciousness and Cognition
2
5
20
2
4
33
15
Erkenntnis
0
0
7
10
10
27
16
Episteme
0
0
11
10
4
25
17
Ethics and Behavior
0
0
4
15
4
23
18
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
3
19
0
0
1
23
19
Metaphilosophy
0
0
16
3
3
22
20
Philosophia
0
0
5
10
4
19
21
Australasian Journal of Philosophy
0
1
6
3
8
18
22
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
0
0
5
10
2
17
23
Noûs
0
4
7
4
2
17
24
Journal of Consciousness Studies
3
5
6
2
1
17
25
Philosophical Explorations
0
7
5
5
0
17
Table 2: Number of x-phi publications in journals per period
Figure 1: Heatmap of x-phi publications in journals per periodFigure 2: Line chart of x-phi publications in journals per period (journals which have published more than 10 x-phi papers in at least one period are highlighted)
Note that the top 25 venues account for 1279 of the 2344 cases identified as likely from a journal (see Table 1). This is slightly more than half (54.56 %). The other half is scattered across 379 different sources, 361 of which have published fewer than 10 x-phi articles in the past two decades. In sum, these data represent decent evidence that these 25 journals, at least, are open to publishing experimental philosophy.
But, of course, we would caution against over-interpreting these patterns. Even setting aside potential inaccuracies in the data itself (e.g., over- or under-estimations of papers published, miscategorizations of journals or subfield), these data are by no means a perfect signal of friendliness to experimental philosophy.
For one, the category of “Experimental Philosophy” on PhilPapers is defined broadly. We don’t know how these trends are affected by further divisions in the style and focus of papers within this broad category. For another, past trends (as Hume would remind us) are no guarantee of future behaviour. Editorial policies and inclinations can change over time. Furthermore, arguably a truer measure of a journal’s “friendliness” would be the rate of acceptance vs. rejection of submitted experimental philosophy papers (absolutely, and compared to the acceptance rate of non-experimental papers). However, we only have data on the number of accepted papers, not the number of rejected papers. Relatedly, publication trends will be affected not only by acceptance rates but also by submission rates. One explanation for why a journal has not published many experimental philosophy papers is that the journal is not open to publishing x-phi. But another explanation is that experimental philosophers simply haven’t been submitting their work to that journal.
This leads us to a final point. We hope these data are useful to experimental philosophers looking to identify venues where they can be confident that “but it’s experimental philosophy” will not be taken as a sufficient reason for rejection. Still, we would like to encourage experimental philosophers to submit their work to general philosophy journals, if they want their work (and experimental philosophy more generally) to reach a broader philosophical audience. The numbers show that general philosophy journals do not currently publish many experimental philosophy papers. But if we avoid submitting this kind of work to those journals, the situation can only get worse. Let’s try to avoid reifying the patterns observed until now.
These are, unfortunately, real examples from journal reports. ↩︎
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
