I seriously believe that philosophy needs something like ArXiv: a place to store and distribute work not simply in progress, or prior to validation, but independently of it. Philpapers is too close to the current model of validation ('publication') and its disciplinary norms.
As a quick hack, I think someone start an open access journal with the explicit editorial policy 'we reject nothing', as a way simply to make referencing work that isn't gated by validation, so that we might develop better modes of validation independently of distribution.
Call it 'The Null Journal':
A: "Have you read the new issue of The Null Journal?"
B: "No! Who reads that anyway?"
A: "No one. No one reads any journals. It's not what they're for."
B: "What does the editorial board look like?"
A: "∅"
A: "Have you read the new issue of The Null Journal?"
B: "No! Who reads that anyway?"
A: "No one. No one reads any journals. It's not what they're for."
B: "What does the editorial board look like?"
A: "∅"
Or call it NoXiv. The branding really doesn't matter, and that's the point. Journals should either exist as peer collectives that link to content, without any distribution, or they should make objects people read. There's Nothing in between.
For my thoughts on these matters and how they're responsible for structural problems ravaging the profession, see this: deontologistics.co/2014/07/06/the…
Transvaluers gonna transvaluate. Solidarity in (bibliographic) active nihilism.🖖
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
