One of my papers (the Kaikoura piece) has been sent back with a rejection slip. Now this isn’t as bad as it might seem, for two reasons. The first is that the paper did get far enough to be revised, which is better than for most other submissions, so hurray me. The second is, well, that it seems that the reviewers really were never going to accept the paper anyway. I quote:
The question that the author raises is pointless and rests on a total misunderstanding of the conspiracy theory as presented by Karl Popper and by Richard Hofstadter. The theory was the subject of criticism for almost two centuries, and the latest literature that continues this activity is quite redundant.
The author seems not to take the main point, namely that Pigden and Keeley havent the faintest idea what the problem is, nor do they even competently reproduce what Popper says.
Which is to say that all the recent work on Conspiracy Theories in Philosophy (according to the two reviewers) is unnecessary because none of the work improves upon Sir Karl Raimond Popper’s work in `The Open Society and Its Enemies.’
Now, I could rant on for quite some time as to how ridiculous that view is but I am not going to. One of the first lessons you learn in the publication game is that papers get rejected for silly reasons and the only real response is to seek publication elsewhere. So, off the paper goes (again).