As many of you know, for approximately the last four years the Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy has been publishing shorter discussion notes. Starting this month, I will be taking over as editor for the discussion notes section on JESP, taking over from Julia Driver.

For the last four years, Julia has been doing fantastic work with the discussion notes on JESP, getting the concept off to a really great start and filling what I think has been a real void in the field for a venue to publish important points in ethics without adding filler to bring them up to current conventions of standard paper length. JESP has been publishing at a rate of about 7 discussion notes per year, and impressively, over a third of published notes are by PEA Soupers.

I hope to pick up exactly where she’s left off, and continue to try to find and provide a venue for the best discussion-length points being made today in the fields of applied ethics, normative theory, metaethics, social and political philosophy, the philosophy of law, and cognate topics. I hope that you’ll all keep JESP on your radar screen and send us your best short work!

14 Replies to “JESP Discussion Notes – new editor

  1. Excellent! Very glad this feature of JESP will remain and that you are giving it publicity. I agree that such short notes can be very useful and that there are not enough outlets for such work. I hope the Souper Peas rock JESP’s shorter discussion notes. Perhaps, if the powers that be at Pea Soup think it a good idea, every once and a while people who publish some short discussion paper with JESP might link to it here so as to continue the discussion here?

  2. Wow, what a great idea, Sobel. Would that I knew the powers that be.
    And thanks, Mark, both for continuing the tradition at JESP and publicizing it here.

  3. This is good news. Julia has been doing an excellent job, and I know that Mark will continue this excellent work. JESP is providing a great service. And I like Sobel’s idea as well.

  4. Hi Mark,
    Does it matter how long ago the target article was published?
    Any general guideline here would be a help…

  5. Hi, Brad.
    All brief articles making compact points of ongoing interest are encouraged. To me, a good point about an older article with proven importance is at least as important as a rebuttal of an article from the latest issue of PPA. And a good focused point doesn’t need to be reply to anyone in particular, though it helps if it’s situated in the literature (see Gettier, Ed). If it’s a reply to a thirty-year-old article that has never before been cited, I want a pretty good case that it merits discussion. Does that help?

  6. You bet. Thanks. This fit my rough idea that this part of the journal is like the ethics version of Analysis. Short and sweet, but no less important than the stuff published in the main article section..

  7. Jamie,
    I am sure they would let you correct high school english papers in your spare time if you asked nicely.

Comments are closed.