Since it's in the air, I thought I would do a short thread about how I look at publication records for philosophy job candidates.

Be forewarned: there is a lot of variation in how people view job candidates. I am not telling you how people view these things, I'm not even telling you how my department views things. I'm telling you how *I* view them. Take it for what it's worth.

It's pretty critical that a candidate have at least one publication in a moderate to good journal. While I suppose it's possible that I might consider someone who doesn't, it would require very special circumstances. By in large, without one, I won't look at a candidate.

Why?

1. Because there are a lot of people who, while they do good work, can't manage to finish anything.

2. I'm not an expert in every bit of philosophy, and I don't completely trust letters of recommendation. Publications provide some check on that.

The difference between two publications and one publication is pretty big. So getting a second publication is a big plus in my eyes. Extra bonus if they are somewhat unrelated. It's less impressive if there is big overlap.

While more publication is better, the marginal gain in my eyes drops off after three. That is, once a candidate has two papers, I'm probably sorting them based on things other than the mere number of lines on the CV.

The quality of the journal matters A LOT. I am far more impressed by a candidate with one or two papers in a good place than I am with a candidate with many papers in mid-tier journals. Low-tier journals, book chapter, and the like don't make much of an impact at all.

Insofar as I'm representative, my advice to a student would be to focus on getting a couple of papers in good places, and worry less about getting a ton of papers in a lot of mediocre to bad places.

I will read your papers. I recognize my own judgment can be idiosyncratic. I also know that bad things get published in good places and good things can get passed over. I will make adjustments (up or down) based on my own reading, although I don't let my judgment totally dominate

In particular, I'm on the lookout for "least publishable units." If you have five published papers, but they look like it's really just the same idea said five different ways, I will notice and will factor that into my judgment.

I'm not going to punish you for that or anything, but I will treat those five papers as if they are just one line on the CV for the purposes of comparison.

Time since degree matters. Obviously people who are just coming out will have fewer papers, and I adjust for that. I'm especially worried about someone with a weak publication record who has been out for a while. That's usually a red flag.

Conference presentations are important, too. I like to see someone engaged with the field. But I'm not particular impressed by someone who presents the same paper over and over and over. (I've see a few CVs that make me wonder...)

Co-authorship is fine, but it's best when it's single authored. Co-authorship with an advisor makes it more difficult to judge what was the student and what was the advisor. I'm not saying I ignore these (far from it), but I will do a little investigation.

Okay. That's a lot, and I'll stop there. If you have any questions, just ask. I'll tell you how I look at things. But remember the caveat: this is just me, and I'm just one lonely philosopher in a sea of differing opinions.