Login
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread,
My employer uses turnitin and asks us to investigate every single case where turnitin shows any percentage of assignments being generated by AI. I think this has gotten a bit out of hand despite constantly warning my students about the policy. (Student who have something detected also tend to conclude their assignments with “some experts say X some experts say Y and this is an important issue so we need to investigate further and have more discussions.”)
I think this has substantially increased my workload and that of the casual staff who works with me. Is this getting more common? How have others dealt with the increased workload and potential unpaid work of casual staff?
Good questions. I haven't had a major surge in investigations or made any major changes to how I teach yet yet, but I spoke to friend recently who has who told me that they are now simply having students do all of their work by hand in class.
What about the rest of you? Have you experienced a big surge in academic misconduct cases because of AI? If so, how are you dealing with it? And either way, if you have experienced a surge or not, have you adopted any teaching strategies to prevent AI-based misconduct?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
What are the norms (in the US) for expressing gratitude to your dissertation advisor/dissertation committee upon completing your dissertation? A handwritten card seems appropriate. Should you give a small gift as well?
Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:
The important thing is to keep the relationship professional. Where I worked before (in the USA), we had an awkward situation where students from some countries would give professors expensive gifts as they left an exam 8in the Business School) - quite expensive bottles of wine, etc. This is wholly inappropriate in the USA, especially at a public university, even if it would be expected in tehir home country. The greatest gift you can give a supportive professor is to have a great career yourself - if you publish a book in 10 years, and your feelings are still really warm, then send them a copy of the book.
Do any other readers have any helpful tips?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
What's the risk of putting the titles of one's "in progress" or "under review" papers on one's website? Sometimes I'll see a website where someone has replaced the title of their paper with something to the effect of "title redacted for review". And sometimes they'll even redact the titles of presentations on their CV (if they have a paper under review with the same title). But redacting titles of papers and presentations is a pain. So what's the risk?
Is the thought that reviewers might discover your identity and form biases? If so, are some authors more likely than others to suffer from deanonymization? Might those who study or work at prestigious institutions, or who have excellent publication records, even benefit from a positive presumption after deanonymization?
Good questions. What do you all think?
In our two most recent "how can we help you?" threads, two comments were posted (by the same reader?) on whether to accept a reviewer assignment for a paper that they already recommended rejecting at another journal:
I've been asked to review a paper in a journal that I've already reviewed in a different journal and recommended rejection. I haven't seen the new paper but the title is the same. I was quite sure the paper was not ready for publication then and its been about 3 months since then that I've received the request and so I think its unlikely the paper has substantially improved. Should I still take up the review request?
----
Should you review a paper that you've reviewed before for another journal that you recommended rejection there? I'm not sure if it seems unfair to them that they have to be reviewed by the same reviewer that already didn't like their work the first time and maybe deserve to have someone else read the work?
Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:
I have refused to review for a second time. Reason is that I believe that I may be mistaken. And being on the other end, my currently most cited paper (and among the top cited papers in the relevant debate) was rejected by a particular reviewer several times at different journals, always giving the same set of comments. (Almost prompting me to leave academics.) I think it would be bad to exacerbate one's mistake.
This is my policy as well, and for the same reasons. Peer-review is such a crapshoot, and referees so different in their judgments, that I think an author deserves a shot with different reviewers in different places.
What do you all think?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a PhD student asks:
I'm a graduate student and I've submitted my paper to many conferences, including the graduate conference. I'm wondering if there is any chance that my ideas will be stolen and published before I publish them. I have this question because I've heard that many referees for graduate conferences are students, and I've heard that students have stolen other people's ideas from conference papers. Also, sometimes I come up with an idea and I think I've read it before, but I can't find it. But I'm not sure if it's from a draft I've read before.
I have all kinds of thoughts about this, and will probably weigh in down in the comments section. But, before I do, I'm curious to hear from other readers.
What do you all think? Have you ever run into problems presenting unpublished work at conferences or colloquia (viz. sketchy shenanigans that made you think someone took and published your ideas)? In line with this blog's safe and supportive mission, please don't make explicit or implicit allegations directed toward identifiable individuals. Instead, I'm just looking for a general sense of whether people have run into problems that have led them to think that presenting at conferences (and such) is risky for junior people for the kinds of reasons the OP mentions.
In our January "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:
This is a request, rather than a question. Could we make a chart with all of the unhelpful, problematic things we see through the job market process for schools--to generate collective knowledge? e.g. Some schools are atrocious with spousal hiring. Some schools pitch salaries very low, expecting you'll negotiate. Some schools have departments collapsing because the financial health of the university is bad. Surely, this information would be helpful to future candidates.
In brief, doing this sort of thing at the Cocoon isn't consistent with this blog's safe-and-supportive mission. Further, although I'm not a lawyer, I imagine that making a list of which schools do various "problematic things" could be legally problematic, viz. libel (if false allegations are spread that damages a program's reputation). However, what I think would be consistent with the Cocoon's mission is for job candidates to enumerate in fully general terms the kinds of unnecessary indignities or problematic practices they have faced on the market, without naming or otherwise implicating particular individuals, schools, or programs, either explicitly or implicitly. Doing this could be helpful, first of all, by drawing attention to the kinds of things that job candidates find to be problematic--and so, secondly, by perhaps generating some kind of impetus (viz. raising public consciousness in the profession) for improving hiring practices.
So, this is what I propose instead. Job candidates: without naming or (explicitly or implicitly) implicating any particular individuals, programs, or institutions, what general kinds of things have you encountered on the market that you consider to be problematic and warranting correction, and why? The OP named a few: schools being atrocious with spousal hiring, pitching extremely low salaries, having bad financial health as institutions that imperil departments, etc. What other kinds of (potentially) problematic things have job candidates encountered, and what (if anything) do you think would be better?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
Should you write letters of recommendations for undergraduate students who took you for a 300-student lecture, whose work you didn't personally grade and with whom you had no interaction?
I'd have thought the answer is obviously no, but then I wonder whether this disadvantages students, who need the letters and who can't always find a way to get to know professors... Is refusing at least a decent thing to do, or is it unfair to vulnerable, shy or otherwise struggling students?
Good questions. I'm not sure that I've encountered this kind of situation before, so I'm not sure exactly what I think. I suppose you could always ask such a student to provide you with some of their work to review, and then go from there. But again, I don't think I've ever encountered this situation. To the best of my recollection, I've only been asked to write letters for students who have taken multiple courses with me, and all of our courses are 25 students or less and we have no TA's, so I always feel well-positioned to decide whether I can write a good letter.
Anyway, what do you all think?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
Is there a norm on how much of a book chapter contribution to an edited volume can overlap with material published (or to be published) by a journal? I feel like philosophers often "recycle" their own writings but I wonder if there are expectations or norms or even recommendations about this!
Good question. I know that some publishers have explicit requirements on what they allow, and that it may differ according to the publisher. But, beyond this, I'm not sure what the norms are. My sense is that some authors do repeatedly recycle previously published ideas, but I'm not at all sure what is considered good practice here.
Anyone have any tips or insights?
Alberto Giubilini, University of Oxford
Udo Schuklenk, Queen’s University
Francesca Minerva, University of Milan
Julian Savulescu, National University of Singapore and University of Oxford
(reposted from the Journal of Medical Ethics Blog )
The reversal of the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling by the US Supreme Court in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization removed the Constitutional protection of women’s right to access abortion services in the US. This decision has resulted in renewed interest in the morality of conscientious commitment by health care professionals to provide abortion care.
Typically, ethical debates on conscience in health care revolve around the morality of doctors refusing to provide professional services on idiosyncratic personal conscience claims. Here the issue is different in that conscientious doctors, motivated by a commitment to professional values, might want to provide services that are arguably in their patients’ best interest, but that are illegal.
Most of the time, the type of health care we are legally entitled to coincides with what is considered good medical and medical ethics standards by relevant professional bodies. At the moment, most non-sectarian (e.g. non-religious) mainstream medical organizations in Western countries, as well as the World Medical Association support the provision of abortion care.
However, as Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization shows, professional and legal expectations sometimes come apart.
The question arises as to what professional obligations healthcare professionals are subject to in such cases, and how professional organizations’ codes of practice should handle such cases. These are the questions we address in our recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
The central professional obligation for doctors is to act in the best medical interests of their patients. On the assumption that it is at least reasonable to think that foetuses do not have a moral status that outweighs the value of women’s health and autonomy, the “best medical interest” criterion implies that at very least doctors will be professionally justified in providing abortions to women in jurisdictions where it is illegal, when there is a serious threat either to their life or to their health. As things stand now, professional organizations’ codes recognise the woman as the primary patient, which is consistent with a plausible understanding of the Best Medical Interest standard of professional obligations based on reasonable, defensible ethical arguments.
Importantly, that doctors are professionally justified in providing illegal abortions does not mean that they are ethically justified, or that they should be exempted from the legal consequences of acting against the law. The rule of law prevails and legal obligations trump professional ones. However, it means that professional organizations have a duty to support and to not sanction members who act according to professional standards, even if against the law. It is the responsibility of relevant authorities to enforce the law, but it is the responsibility of professional organizations to uphold professional standards.
At the moment conscientious commitment claims do not enjoy legal protection. This raises the question how professional organizations should regulate the matter in their professional guidelines and codes of practice, given this lack of legal protection.
Professional organizations often include in their professional codes of practice the professional requirement to operate within the law. This means that a practitioner who acts against the law, but according to what would otherwise be professional standards (e.g. beneficence) is acting unprofessionally and therefore could lose their licence.
If we think abortion is in the best medical interest of a woman and considerations of women’s interests trump considerations of a foetus’ moral status, then professional codes should remove the explicit professional requirement to operate within the law in their guidelines on abortion. Also, professional organizations should not punish their members and should indeed lobby to protect them against legal sanctions that pertain to the professional sphere, such as the deregistration of professionals that adhere to good standards of medical ethics. After all, they were following professional standards, which is the only thing that falls within the area of competence of professional organisations.
When a law regulates a professional practice that is considered consistent with professional standards, like abortion, the potential for conflict should be acknowledged by the relevant professional organizations. To simply claim that professionals should act within the terms of the law is to refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a conflict between standards of medical ethics and the law. This is a mistake. The role of professional organizations is to regulate professional conduct, not to enforce the law.
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
How to teach topics which in some way come very close to the students and their lives or are related to who they are? What I have in mind are cases of teaching sexual ethics when someone in the classroom says she is a victim of a sexual assault, teaching philosophy of disability when there is a disabled person in the class, or teaching philosophy of discrimination when you have 24 white students and one black student on the course? Is there something the teacher should do differently in these cases compared to when the issue is not present in the same way?
These are excellent and important questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:
I have an experience that is relevant to [the OP's] question. I was teaching a feminist philosophy class for the first time and we often discussed sexual assault. I used an example to explain a concept and, unbeknownst to me, the example I used very closely matched the actual experience of one of my students. She emailed me about it later and requested that I stick to the examples provided in the text. That way, she explained, she will have already grappled with the exemplar situation (at least once) while reading and could be more mentally and emotionally prepared in class discussions. I apologized to her and agreed that her suggestion was very sensible. That's what I did for the rest of the semester and I had no other issues.
Does anyone else have any helpful tips or experiences to share?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
Two questions about job market etiquette:
1) Is it considered "rude," "in poor taste," or in violation of relevant norms to leave a job after only one year? One the one hand, I believe in employee freedom in a labor market; on the other, I get that people might be offended by this.
2) Is is a valid worry that your current employer might find out that you're on the market? I would hope that application materials are confidential, but I also imagine that philosophers, like the rest of humankind, like to gossip. Does anyone have experience of their employers retaliating in any sort of way after finding out they were applying out?
Good questions! Another reader submitted the following response:
I had a colleague who we hired leave after one year. I did not consider her rude ... I understood her motives quite well. But I am sure some of my colleagues absolutely hated her. We spent a lot of time doing the search, time we did not have. And then we choose her from among a number of fully qualified candidates - she deserved the job, but others were deserving as well. And then when she left we did not get the line renewed. It was lost ... for good! So do not expect your colleagues to be endeared to you if they find out you are on the market.
This sounds right to me, but here are my hot takes:
But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from people who have some experience with this kind of scenario, both on the job-candidate and hiring sides of things.
FreshRSS 