Help me find the right journal!

[Myword]

Back after a long hiatus   

My search for a journal to publish my article is a deadend, after over seven desk rejections with no comments. and one unpleasant commentary who said I should cut half of it. I have studiously searched for possible journals but I don't want more desk rejections.

The problem is that the paper is a hybrid of ontology, hard science, concept development theory and some 17th century philosophy. Its like 2 or 3 papers in one, too much science or too much philosophy with a psychological learning theory. So it does not satisfy any one particular discipline. It is totally original (which doesn't help) and I argue for a position that is unpopular and ignored by scholars. I believe strongly in the paper and it means a lot to me because I dwelled on this subject for years before spending 2 years writing and research and considered it when I was an undergraduate. I am sure that my analysis of different species is no interest to anyone but it is integral. Interidisciplinary journals are difficult because they are so wide open.
    It is NOT philosophy of science, psychology, physical science or strictly 16th century.
    I tried publishers automated journal searches, bibliographies and academic social media.
    Last resort--post it independently on the web, unpublished like so many papers.
    Thank you for reading. Any concrete ideas?

[Parasaurolophus]

PM me the abstract and the journals you've already sent it to, and I'll give you a list of new places to try.

Alternately, you can certainly post it to the PhilArchive. I don't know that it will reach all that many people, but it will at least be included in the PhilPapers feeds for those who've indicated an interest in its subject(s). In fact, you can definitely do this and keep sending it to journals.

[Myword]

Ever sent a journal another different article, while the first was being reviewed?

Is that acceptable?

[Ruralguy]

If you mean a totally different article submitted while another is under review, its done all the time in the sciences, or people wouldn't be able to have their publication rates up so high.  I can't imagine any concerns over that.

[Parasaurolophus]

Ever sent a journal another different article, while the first was being reviewed?

Is that acceptable?

I don't think it's the done thing in philosophy. I suspect it would be frowned on, though probably nobody would say anything about it to you directly.

[Wahoo Redux]

Sounds like you are covering a hell of a lot of space there.  Maybe it should be a book? 

[jerseyjay]

Ever sent a journal another different article, while the first was being reviewed?
Is that acceptable?

I don't think it's the done thing in philosophy. I suspect it would be frowned on, though probably nobody would say anything about it to you directly.

Do you mean sending article B to the same journal that is currently reviewing article A? I don't do this, mainly because I don't want all my articles to appear in the same journal. I have published three articles in one journal, but over the course of a dozen years. I usually wait for a few issues of the journal to come out before submitting to the same journal again.

If you mean, submitting article B to journal X while article A is under review at journal Y, then I do that all the time. I have had up to four different articles under review at different journals at one time, and the publication order does not have much to do with the order I have written the articles.

I suppose I might consider overlapping submissions to the same journal if (a) the journal was the flagship journal of the field since it is not very likely to have more than one article published in it and if so, that'd look really good; or (b) if the subfield were so narrow there were only one journal that published it and hence publishing mainly in one journal would not look that weird.

[Kron3007]

Sounds like you are covering a hell of a lot of space there.  Maybe it should be a book? 

Or split it I to multiple papers that build off one another. 

You say it is like 2-3 papers in one, that likely isn't a good thing.  I suspect it may all work in your head, but may not flow well for others.  This is also evident from the only feedback you received, that you should cut half of it. 

As much as we all hate negative reviews, you should consider them seriously and reflect on the paper.

[Myword]

It all works perfectly in my mind, but no philosopher is interested in physical science as such . So I put that analysis in my appendix. Even so, my position is unpopular nowadays and it only touches on current literature.
Meanwhile it was rejected after 2 weeks by another journal. My idea generally originated long ago in my twenties.
     I will try to add new material to strengthen it. No one will publish the hard science, especially not a science journal. It is too simple for them.

thank you for answers

[Kron3007]

There are interdisciplinary journals out there that would likely be happy to accept such a paper if it is well written, makes coherent arguments, and is interesting.  I don't mean to be harsh, but the question is if your paper meets these requirements.

You would likely be well advised to send it to a trusted colleague in your general areas to get some honest feedback.  I know how much negative feedback from reviewers can hurt, but you should also take a close look at their comments.  Usually the feedback they give is not out of malice and is actually meant to help (although reviewers sometimes lack tact...).   

[Myword]

So a foreign journal tells me they will send it for reviews, finally, and to rewrite
the style notes, references. I do this, and now the editor said that I used the wrong
Chicago style! Confusedly, I had it partly right to begin with and did not know it.
Editors are so terse, rarely explicit with me. And assume I am on the same page, literally.
Turned out I got  wrong instructions from my subjects "Phil. Documentation Center",a private company. Yeah, websites mislead me.
   Meanwhile, I use Microsoft Word 365 for free now and Wordpad without paying for the new  Word version. I hope it lasts because I have technical problems.
    Well, I am happy the journal is willing to go the mile for me, and also may accept a discussion note on a published article from another author.
     Today is MARCH FORTH---great day for a walk           I have no trusted colleagues or any colleagues now. Except you guys.
 

[Wahoo Redux]

Congrats MW!!!  I ****ing hate the formatting business there at the end.  But hey, it's gonna see print, right?  Woohoo!

[Myword]

The article is accepted,finally, will be published soon. Not well known, but I'm not particular.
Yay.

Then one journal rejects another article of mine based on one reviewer who
misread it--and thinks I should mention ideas that I already did or implied.
A waste of time after 6 months waiting. It's often merely subjective.
 Sometimes we should ask not whether our work is original enough
for them, but whether their journal is originalenough for us!

[Parasaurolophus]

Congratulations, that's fantastic!

[jerseyjay]

Then one journal rejects another article of mine based on one reviewer who
misread it--and thinks I should mention ideas that I already did or implied.
A waste of time after 6 months waiting. It's often merely subjective.

Congratulations on the acceptance.

I agree that it is frustrating to have readers miss the point of an article. Sometimes this is entirely due to the reader's negligence. However, often when I get such comments, it points to something in the draft that can be improved. Maybe you are not clear enough? Maybe you need to be more explicit? Maybe there is something else you can do to make it clear what you are trying to do in an article?

A peer-reviewer is probably going to be as careful a reader as your article will have. Many other people will glance at an article, look only at parts, etc., and are more likely to overlook or misinterpret aspects. So when I get a review that says, "your article doesn't have a thesis," or, "you should do X in the article," after I kvetch, "there is a thesis," or, "but my article does X," I then look at where the article actually does these things and make sure it does it in a clear way.

I try to get something useful out of every peer review--even if it is just to try to idiot-proof my article more so idiots like the second reviewer cannot misread it again.

What I find really frustrating is waiting six months, a year, etc., only to get a one-line rejection that the article is not a good fit. That's rather useless.