My First Rejection

... from an Academic Journal: ANALYSIS

Publication is within reach! Oh wait, you’re already reading this… or are you? At least the reviewer was actually reading compared to the usual internet reply:

”Analysis - Decision on Manuscript ID ANALYSIS-2024-200

16-Apr-2024

Dear Mr. Adam Golding

I write concerning your paper "COMPARED TO WHAT?" which you submitted to Analysis.

I’m sorry to tell you that the Editors have decided to reject your paper without inviting resubmission.

The journal is unable to consider resubmissions of rejected papers, except for those cases where a resubmission is explicitly invited. That is because Analysis receives a very high number of submissions every month.

Because of the high number of submissions, the Editors are unable to enter into correspondence about the basis of individual decisions. The Editors do endeavour to provide some comments on each submission, but lack the resources to further discuss them.

Authors should note that referees sometimes ask that portions of their reports not be passed on to the author. Moreover, the Editors' decision is not based solely on the referees’ full reports; the Editors also must compare each paper with other submissions to select the strongest papers for publication. The journal’s acceptance rate is lower than 8%.


Best wishes,
Mrs Jodie Elgey
Editorial Assistant
Analysis Editorial Office
analysis@theeditorialhub.com


Referee: 1

Comments to the Author
This article provide a solution to (semantic) paradoxes by focusing on the pragmatic aspect of language use. The main point is to use comparative questions (“Compared to what?”) to disrupt paradoxical loops. The author's writing has a touch of Wittgenstein's style. Unfortunately, as it stands I cannot recommend this article for publication in the Analysis.

Comments to the author:

(1) The first worry is that the subject matter is not clearly articulated. I wonder whether this article is about the semantical paradoxes (as the abstract indicates) or all paradoxes in general (as the word “the common paradox” the the last paragrah on page 2 indicates).

If the subject matter is focused on semantical paradoxes, this may confuse the reader because the article's text completely lacks a discussion of the liar paradox. Even though this paradox is the main object that the revision theory of truth mentioned in the article is supposed to address.

If what the author studies includes all possible paradoxes. It seems to me that the result is too fast and lacks necessary arguments when the author asserts that all paradoxes “results in a potentially infinite loop”. For instance, among semantical paradoxes, Yablo's paradox is, as many logicians believe, a paradox without any circularity. Another well-known paradox is Zeno’s paradox, which I don’t believe falls into any loop. Even for the paradoxes listed by the author, I believe it would benefit the reader if the author could explain in what sense some of these paradoxes, such as the last two, “result in a potentially infinite loop.”

(2) Next, the argument in this article is insufficient. It only tells the reader how to break out the paradoxical cycles. However, the crucial question of paradoxes is to reveal the reason why they lead to such cycles. The article does not even say any word about the reason. I suggest that the author should provide a more detailed explanation of why the proposed method addresses specific paradoxes.

(3) At last, while this article discusses the issue of paradoxes, it does not establish the necessary connection with the the mainstream theories of paradoxes. The article, as it stands, does not indicate that the author has any substantial understanding of any of these mainstream theories related to paradoxes. Even though it mentions Gupta and Herzberger's revision theory of truth, the article fails to provide corresponding references. Additionally, the connection between the viewpoints in the article and the latter theory is not clearly explained.

Overall, I believe that this article is not a serious philosophical paper; it appears more like a light essay with some viewpoints but lacking detailed explanations. Also, the arguments in this article are too hasty and lacks necessary details. I suggest that the author should expand the content of this paper in more detail and consider submitting to other journals, rather than journals like Analysis, which are well-known for publishing short papers. I suggest that this article should be rejected for publication.”