This is Guglielmo Feis's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Guglielmo Feis's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Guglielmo Feis
Recent Activity
Does anybody who is not provided with the English-native-speaker property think that "right tone" often attaches to something that is recognized as a classal paper? I did not experiment but I guess I'm biased in attributing "right tone" to classical papers I disagree with or find not so interesting rather than to most recently written, hyper-documented, clearer and better structured papers I admire. Maybe as the literature becomes more technical papers get more like entomologists describing arguments rather than as pieces of writinig putting forward ideas with a tone. To borrow an analogy from music, it's like there numbers of shredders who can playing hyperfast and clean arpeggios is growing a lot, but still there's no one with Jason Becker's tone. Anyway, is there something like a "canon" for getting inspiration on good tone (e.g. the sum of all the issues of the philosopher's annual)? Is there a tone section in the referees' guidelines (if there's anything like that)? Do you think that it might be worth to have a survey on that? (i.e.: what do you think is the right tone standard in a certain philosophical community? which works have it? what would you suggest as a canon to learn how to get the right tone?)
Hi Marcus! Well, I'm not a shredder... I wanted to play that sort of things but I always failed in practicing daily. Nonetheless, I've recently discovered "ditones" and I took some sort of commitment in discussing guitar here at http://shreddingditones.blogspot.com and now I try to practice at least 90 minutes/day. I feel it also helps with philosophy, papers, etc.
Maybe we focus on priority and scooping but we are interested in citation practice. What we'd like to see is having the "state of the art" on a certain issue to be presented without omissions.
Marcus: Sorry for the late reply. Here I go clarifying. I agree on PhilPapers being the gold standard for this scooping-issue.. I think this does not imply that, as a philosopher, you can do everything with philpapers only (maybe you can, but you need to be in US or UK...). Academia lets you know about the keywords that bring people to your work, which I find quite useful. Researchgate has some features of reporting impact factor and endorsing skills (I still have no opinion of how useful they are). David: thank you for these clarification on PhilPapers and the Archive. Last worry: can uploading a submitted paper on the PhilPapers archive somehow compromise a blind review? [My tentative answer is “no!”, but it’s a fact that none of the paper I have under submission are on the philpapers archive]
Marcus: even if I joined philpapers because of the cocoon and I'm editing the OIC entry I'm not so sure it should be the "gold standard" for philosophers. The others two have some options the former lacks (mainly in terms of stats you can have as an author). Nonetheless, I agree we can use it as a "gold standard" for the priority issue. Still, I have some worries due to philpapers going towards a subscription model... will it still be "as open" as before? Assaf: thanks. I wanted to point out that not all the citations of your works find their way into scholars. At least, that is not my case (and I know how to add my works on scholars, not their being cited elsewhere). Anyway, the problem is solved if the citing work and the cited work are both on philpapers. I think the objection that remains before setting this "gold standard" is: can philpapers survive becoming our arxiv or far too many drafts or not-yet-published-on-"standard"-journals-papers will overload both editors and servers? [Note: understanding how the "standard" journals work is quite difficult if you are not training into it, i.e. if you are not from US or UK. But that's another story]
Good idea. What about www.academia.edu as a further element in the corpus-used-to-establih-priority? (Or maybe also www.researchgate.net even if I have the impression it is less used). The next step (on which I have no idea) is: such an inclusion can be counted and monitored by google scholar or similar devices? I mean: we want citations that can be measured, don't we?
Guglielmo Feis is now following The Typepad Team
May 15, 2014