C'mon people, we can do better. It can't take bloody 14 months to revise a manuscript. I reached a state where I don't even remember anymore what my proposal was. And yes, sadly, this in philosophy seems to be a 'quick' one.

What has been your experience?

So today I feel I findally 'grew up' by rejecting a paper that had some potential but needed A LOT of work. I still ofc, gave them extensive and detailed feedback and suggestions of points that should be addressed

I feel that I was seeing myself in those authors and I was like: ok, you just might need some guidance; I'll give it to you. But that's not the job of a peer-reviewer.

This only ended in subsequent rounds in which I ended up rejecting the paper 'cos it was still failing to address pressing concerns, or in 'Frankenstein' papers that didn't make much sense.

@iashedinburgh.bsky.social

@ademertzi.bsky.social :)

so preventing participation by making events "in-person only"gets in conflict with any statement about "access", "inclusivity" &"diversity". And if we learnt anything from COVID, it is that, while online/hybrid events might not be ideal, having online alternatives is cost-effective and manageable

(leaving aside considerations about climate change and whether it's justified to travel to the other side of the world for a 2-day conference)