“I’ve heard people joke on more than a couple of occasions that publishing a book is the way to get around Reviewer 2 at the journals.”

An assistant professor of philosophy has a query about the relative career-value of books and articles.

He writes:

When I was a grad student, I viewed the publication of a book as the pinnacle of publication prestige. Publishing a few articles in journals like Noûs, Ergo, etc. was an achievement, but publishing a book with Oxford University Press, Routledge, etc. was even more impressive. My anecdotal impression is that this kind of view is widespread.

I suppose I’m wondering whether it’s true that this kind of view is widespread, and if so, whether it ought to be.

The latter question has been especially salient to me since becoming an assistant professor and speaking with several other assistant professors over the last couple of years. All of us have, since becoming assistant professors, been invited by various presses to publish with them. (These are profs from all kinds of institutions, by the way). And many of us have also noticed in providing referee reports to such presses, that the barrier to publishing with them is quite low—much lower than a series of papers with top journals. Indeed, I’ve heard people joke on more than a couple of occasions that publishing a book is the way to get around Reviewer 2 at the journals.  All of this makes me think that perhaps books shouldn’t be held in such high regard if they are. But are they? And should they be if so?

What are your impressions, readers?

The post Books vs. Articles in Philosophy first appeared on Daily Nous.