Lex Academic®

Lex Academic co-founder, Professor Constantine Sandis, in conversation with the Editor-in-Chief of Philosophical Investigations, Dr Mario Von Der Ruhr.

Philosophical Investigations is an international peer-reviewed quarterly journal founded in 1978 by the philosopher Frederick E. Mosedale , with the aim of providing a home for articles about – or in some way influenced by – the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Upon Howard Mounce’s retirement in 2022, the journal’s editorship was taken over by Dr Mario Von Der Ruhr of Swansea University. Our co-founder, Professor Constantine Sandis, had the pleasure of interviewing the journal’s new Editor-in-Chief about the journal’s future and what the day-to-day running of an academic journal is like behind the scenes.

Lex Academic

Hi Mario, thank you so much for taking the time to do this interview with us, we really appreciate it. And huge congratulations on becoming the Editor-in-Chief of Philosophical Investigations. It’s always been one of my favourite journals and I was very excited to hear that you were taking over the reins. Perhaps you could begin by telling our readers a little bit about yourself and your association with the journal since 1992.

Mario Von Der Ruhr

Thanks very much for your kind words on my appointment as Editor-in-Chief of Philosophical Investigations. I am delighted to hear that it is one of your favourite journals, and grateful for the opportunity to talk about it. I have, indeed, been associated with PI for well over 30 years. My involvement with the journal began shortly after I had taken up my post as Lecturer in Philosophy at University College Swansea – as it was then called – back in 1992. By that time, D. Z. Phillips had already been at the helm of PI for 10 years, having taken over from the journal’s Founding Editor, Frederick Mosedale, in 1982. Dewi wanted to enlarge the Board of Associate Editors, and so he invited me and some of the other new lecturers, including Timothy Tessin and Olli Lagerspetz, to join. Since then, I have also acted as Book Review Editor, Guest Editor, and proof-reader for PI.

Lex Academic

Thank you. Could you tell us a bit about the history of the journal and how you have found your first few months there. Did you face any particular challenges? And what are your ambitions for Philosophical Investigations now that we have firmly entered the second decade of the 21st century? I’ve noticed that the journal now covers ‘every branch of philosophy…whether focusing on traditional or on new aspects of the subject’. Would you say that its connection to Wittgenstein’s work has loosened over the years? 

Mario Von Der Ruhr

Yes. Philosophical Investigations’ illustrious history began in 1978, when its quarterly issues featured between 47 and 79 pages and were still printed on A4 size sheets of paper precariously held together by staples, with light-blue cardboard covers listing the contents. In 1982, D. Z. Phillips took over as Editor-in-Chief and continued in this role until his sudden death in 2006, when H. O. Mounce was appointed as his successor. Dewi wanted the journal to “provide opportunities for those who want to keep certain possibilities open in philosophy because they have to”, and I think the sentiment still resonates with our editors today. During his 16-year tenure (2006–2022), Howard Mounce managed to broaden PI’s philosophical scope without sacrificing its identity and reputation as the only journal—apart from the online Nordic Wittgenstein Review—in which Wittgenstein’s work is consistently highlighted. Given the pressures under which the editors of academic journals labour these days, this is a formidable achievement. It is also a hard act for me to follow. The major challenge I faced when I took over the reins last November was the introduction of a fully electronic submission and peer-review system. Up until then, the administrative side of the publishing process had been handled – and handled superbly – by our Editorial Assistant Helen Baldwin, whose association with PI goes back even further than mine. Our editors now had to monitor electronic ‘dashboards’, authors were required to register for an account before they could submit their work, and notifications were dispatched by robots rather than human beings. As you can imagine, the transition to the new system took some getting used to, but I think we have got a handle on it now.

Like my predecessors, I am keen to retain PI’s wider scope without losing its distinctive philosophical orientation. In this connection, we shall also continue to publish special issues on wider philosophical themes. The tradition was started by D. Z. Phillips with On Wittgenstein (Vol. 24/2, 2001), and carried forward by H. O. Mounce, on whose initiative further special issues have been released on Ethics and Religion (Vol. 34/2, 2011), The Work of G. E. M. Anscombe and Peter Geach (Vol. 38, 1–2, 2015), the British Wittgenstein Society’s 10th Anniversary Conference, Wittgenstein in the 21st Century (Vol. 41/1–2, 2018) and the writings of Simone Weil (Vol. 43/1–2, 2020). Looking ahead, there will be special issues on philosophy and literature, as well as on Wittgenstein and the philosophy of mathematics. And no, I do not think that the journal has loosened its connection with Wittgenstein at all. On the contrary, a good many papers received by and published in PI are still concerned with his work, either directly or indirectly, nor do I see a reversal of this trend.

Lex Academic

That’s great to hear, thank you. Are the themes of special issues decided by the board or volunteered by guest editors?

Mario Von Der Ruhr

Some of the themes are proposed by the Editor-in-Chief, others by our Associate Editors, and yet others by external scholars who think that PI would be a good way to disseminate current research on a topic that would appeal to a wider audience.

Lex Academic

The journal also has a separate Book Review Editor, Craig Taylor of Flinders University. I’ve always placed great value in both reading and writing book reviews. Has the addition of a dedicated editor for this led to any noticeable changes or is it too soon to tell?

Mario Von Der Ruhr

Yes, PI has always had a dedicated Book Review Editor, so this is not an addendum to the Board. I agree with you that book reviews are important, especially when the number of academic publications is constantly rising and scholars are barely managing to keep abreast of what is going on even in their own research fields. Unfortunately, little academic kudos is attached to book reviews, and even the publishers’ offers of discounted book purchases or book vouchers seem to be insufficient incentives for potential reviewers to read through, annotate and evaluate a 200-page book. Nor are matters helped by the fact that many publishers no longer send out printed review copies but instead expect a reviewer to spend many hours in front of a screen and, with the help of eye ointment, wade through a PDF file that won’t even allow them to extract salient quotations from the text.

Lex Academic

I couldn’t agree with you more. Changing topics from book reviewing to manuscript reviewing, do you have any advice for referees giving feedback? How can one be a constructive reviewer?

Mario Von Der Ruhr

Mindful of Wittgenstein’s warning against the craving for generality, I think we would nevertheless agree that a constructive review is one that is both fair and balanced, charitable and yet critical. Outside academia, the book, film and theatre reviews by Daniel Mendelsohn, currently Editor-in-Chief of The New York Review of Books, are good examples of the proper attitude, I think. In philosophy, a helpful review highlights major strengths and weaknesses, draws attention to exegetical shortcomings, keeps an eye on the author’s engagement with the secondary literature, and suggests ways in which the paper might be improved. If the submission explores Wittgenstein’ reflections on the relation between knowledge, belief and states of mind, for example, then a reviewer may also want to ask whether it reinvents a philosophical wheel that was already – and far more clearly? – set in motion by Norman Malcolm in “Knowledge and Belief” and “Thoughtless Brutes”. It might be objected that while these sorts of considerations may inform the critical appraisal of undergraduate and postgraduate work in philosophy, the scholars who submit their work to an academic journal are seasoned researchers who know what they are doing, so that their work requires far less screening. I wish this were so, but unfortunately our peer reviewers’ verdicts and the large number of rejections, including ‘desktop rejections’ at the gate, suggest otherwise.

Lex Academic

Thank you. And what about advice on how to receive feedback? It strikes me that not every academic is equally good at this. My first ever journal submission received a revise and resubmit and I remember (falsely) thinking at the time that this was effectively a polite rejection, and sending my paper to a different journal, despite encouraging reports. Second time round, I’d learned my lesson, but I made the opposite mistake of giving in to referee suggestions that I did not entirely agree with. The publication helped me get my first job, so it’s hard to regret, but it was a distasteful experience I’ve been lucky not to have to repeat again. I guess what I’m asking is, how should an author respond to mixed reviews and a revise and resubmit verdict? How does one strike that balance between authorial integrity and pragmatism?

Mario Von Der Ruhr

I agree with you that not every academic is equally good at receiving feedback, especially if the reviewer suggests a major revision of the text. Your initial reaction to the ‘revise and resubmit’ decision on your submission is understandable, but you are right: it is not a polite rejection, any more than a “pass” grade on a term paper is tantamount to a “fail”, even if the readers recommend a substantial rewrite. If the reviewers’ comments are astute and their criticisms forceful, then hopefully this will prompt the author to take these on board and resubmit. However, if an author strongly disagrees, not only with the final verdict but with the reasons provided in its support – perhaps because the readers have allegedly misconstrued the paper’s primary intent, overlooked this or that aspect of its central argument, etc., then the labours involved in a substantial rewrite may well have to be weighed against the chances of a similar verdict elsewhere. Given that the peer review process is not a matter of the blind leading the blind – after all, it does involve scholars on either side of the table – this kind of impasse is difficult to resolve. As for mixed reviews, including the combination “Accept with Minor Revisions” and “Reject”, the Associate Editor who solicited the reviews will not issue a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief without carefully weighing the evidence in support of the respective verdicts, and, if necessary, even a third opinion may be requested to settle the matter.

Lex Academic

Then there are entirely negative reports. Do you find yourself having to sugar-coat them? One hears war stories of academics who persevered with several rejections across years and years only to place their paper in a highly reputable journal. It’s a noble course of action, but one needs to already have career stability to be able to afford it. But there is an (unfortunately) increasing number of scholars in very precarious fixed-term contracts and teaching assistant positions. How resilient should one be in the face of rejection? And has the profession learned anything?

Mario Von Der Ruhr

Some reports do indeed, read as if they had been written by Doctor Joseph Guillotin himself, but in my experience they are also quite rare. Nor do I find that I have to sugar-coat them, as the reviewers’ comments to our authors are never as blunt as Rush Rhees’s memorable response to one of the Philosophical Society’s visiting speakers: “Thank you for coming to Swansea, but I think your paper is rubbish!” Of course, reviewers can also send the Editor separate comments on a submission if they so wish, and then the language may well be a tad more explicit. In the vast majority of cases, though, the comments for the editor are exactly the same as those for the author, nor is there a need for me to redact them in the light of the recipient’s sensibilities. The point you raise about the ever-increasing army of scholars on precarious fixed-term contracts and in TA positions is sobering. Their already lamentable predicament is made even worse by the universal pressure to publish, and indeed to publish more than is good for anyone. I’m afraid that, in this regard, the academy still hasn’t learnt anything. As for rejection letters, I agree that these are always a blow, and that it is difficult to take them on the chin. Recently, a scholar whose submission had been rejected by PI reacted to the verdict by telling me, “For an author, the next best thing to an acceptance is a quick rejection”, which I thought both magnanimous and pragmatic. To be sure, an already established scholar may find it easier to respond in this way than temporary lecturers or TAs who need to enhance their long-term employment prospects by getting some publications out, but even so: the more resilient attitude is no doubt preferable to feeling despondent or dejected.

Lex Academic

I’m originally from Greece and I believe that you are originally from Germany, but now we both work not only within the UK but also within an intellectual atmosphere that is – for better or worse – anglophone. Do you think that this is something that can (unintentionally or otherwise) prejudice referees against manuscripts written by non-native speakers? At Lex we feel very passionate about linguistic injustice. Do you think that this is a real problem and, if so, is there anything that journal editors, editorial boards, and referees can do to help to prevent or at least minimise instances of it, or is a more systematic intervention required?

Mario Von Der Ruhr

Yes, I am originally from Germany and actually live there now, though I remain affiliated with Swansea University as Honorary Senior Lecturer in Philosophy. I can see why, in the interest of objectivity and impartiality, the Barcelona Principles for a Globally Inclusive Philosophy should exhort editors and reviewers not to give “undue weight to their authors’ linguistic style, fluency or accent”, and I agree that a submission should not be eyed with suspicion merely because its author is not a native speaker of English. Like other international journals, PI receives submissions from all over the globe, including from China, India, Kazakhstan and Korea. Even so, articles from the UK, the USA or Canada are not more likely to be accepted than papers from, say, Poland, Portugal or Japan. On the contrary, I can easily think of cases, even recent ones, when philosophers from the latter countries had their work accepted for publication while submissions from Anglo-American scholars were rejected, so an author’s cultural and linguistic background as such is by no means a predictor of success.

As for The Barcelona Principles’ suggestion that we should not attach “undue” importance to an author’s linguistic style or fluency, we need to ask, what is meant by ‘undue’? I take it that if a submission contains an inordinate number of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors – e.g., as we learnt in Logic 101, the omission of a comma may completely alter the logical scope of a claim – it would not be a linguistic injustice to refer the author to an editing service like Lex Academic before even considering it for review. Conversely, does linguistic justice demand that peer reviewers read between the lines of papers whose meaning is awaiting clarification by an English ‘wash’? Surely not. Nor does respect for the language apply only, or even primarily, to non-native authors. Indeed, there are native speakers whose written English – which is what we are talking about – may well be inferior to that of ‘foreign’ scholars who have engaged far more consciously with the intricacies of English grammar and orthography, persistently cultivated their vocabularies, and carefully honed their writing skills. I am thinking here, for example, of my former colleague Ilham Dilman, the Wittgensteinian philosopher Oswald Hanfling, and the Nietzsche scholar Walter Kaufmann. They all had to find their cultural and philosophical feet in a second language, which I am sure was quite a challenge. On the native side of the coin, Norman Malcolm, Howard Mounce, and D. Z. Phillips still stand out – for me, at least – as fine philosophers whose writings are also models of clarity and style.

On this issue, I cannot help agreeing with Clive James who, alluding to the late A. A. Gill’s (1954–2016) battles with dyslexia, wrote: “My own view about the use of English is that there is a limit to how expressive you can be unless you have studied how the language works, but I have to admit that there is the occasional writer who gets a long way without having studied it at all.” You know, in The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage and Punctuation, Bryan Garner reminds us that Abraham Lincoln walked six miles to get a copy of Samuel Kirkham’s English Grammar in Familiar Lectures(1820), “burned pine shavings in a blacksmith shop so that he could read it at night”, and learnt whole sections of the book by heart. Lincoln did this because he cared about speaking and writing well. I would not ask our authors to walk six miles for Bryan Garner’s Modern English Usage or Michael Swan’s equally helpful Practical English Usage, but wouldn’t you expect to find something like Kate Turabian’s Manual for Writers, Strunk & White’s Elements of Style, or at least Collins’ Easy Learning Grammar and Punctuation on their bookshelves? Few of us are able to live up to the high standards set by authors such as Norman Malcolm, Howard Mounce, D. Z. Phillips, or, to use an example from the literary domain, Barry Lopez. Antony Burgess once wrote: “Wedged as we are between two eternities of idleness, there is no excuse for being idle now”. I know that the administrative and teaching duties of contemporary academics afford precious little time for serious contemplation, let alone idleness. Even so, I think that the only sustainable long-term solution to the linguistic inequalities you mentioned earlier is for authors to try and engage more deeply with the medium in which they are trying to express themselves.

Lex Academic

I was pleased to see that the journal has a ‘Philosophical Investigations from past to present’ open access virtual issue, highlighting articles, critical notices, and reviews from its history. I’m also aware that Wiley-Blackwell, who publish the journal, have open access agreements with a range of universities. Do you know whether there are any plans to extend open access coverage further?

Mario Von Der Ruhr

Yes, I think that the free virtual issue gives readers and potential contributors a good idea of PI’s content, and I’m glad that you are drawing attention to it here. As for Open Access (OA), Wiley certainly see it as an important feature of scholarly publishing and are actively promoting its expansion. Nor would an author object to their work being made available as widely as possible without readers having to pay an arm and a leg to access it. On the other hand, not all contributing authors can afford to pay towards the publication of their work, either through institutional funding or out of their own pockets. Wiley already offers waivers and discounts to authors based in low- and middle-income countries, but then there are also an increasing number of independent scholars who, while not residents of these countries, are equally unable to opt for Open Access.

Lex Academic

I feel cautiously optimistic about the future of Wittgenstein studies, both in the UK and abroad. Things certainly seemed to have improved over the past ten years or so. I think that in the UK this is partly due to the British Wittgenstein Society, while in the United States it has perhaps to do with a revived interest in Elizabeth Anscombe and a move away from anti-Wittgensteinian philosophers such as Donald Davidson. Third, we now seem sufficiently distanced from the first half of the 20th century for Wittgenstein to be included in the history of early analytic philosophy, alongside Frege, Russell, and so on. Even the most critical philosopher of Wittgenstein has to acknowledge his very important place in analytic philosophy. Does this sound right to you and is there anything that you would like to add?

Mario Von Der Ruhr

Yes, the steady stream of Wittgenstein-related submissions to PI already makes me feel optimistic about the future of Wittgenstein scholarship. In issue 24:2 (2001), Peter Hacker rightly notes that while empirical knowledge can be passed on, philosophical understanding has to be achieved anew by each generation, and that “those who believe that Wittgenstein contributed more to that form of understanding than any other person in the last century must surely strive to preserve his legacy”. Quite a few scholars, myself included, still applaud this assessment, and the raft of new books on Wittgenstein this year – the centenary of the publication of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus – further testifies to Wittgenstein’s significance. And you are right: his influence would hardly be what it is today without the tireless efforts of the British Wittgenstein Society and the Welsh Philosophical Society to keep Wittgenstein’s legacy alive and pass it on to the next generation of philosophers.

Lex Academic

What percentage of your current submissions would you say are Wittgenstein related? And do you aim to publish a certain number of articles on Wittgenstein per year or are there no such constraints?

Mario Von Der Ruhr

I cannot give you an exact number on this, but if you look at the January and April 2023 issues of PI, you’ll find that the majority of original articles are related to Wittgenstein. As far as I am concerned, that’s very good news. We don’t have an annual quota for such papers, though, nor is there a cap on the number of Wittgenstein-focused articles PI will publish in any given year.

Lex Academic

It used to be the case that Wittgenstein’s book Philosophical Investigations, after which the journal has been named, was his most popular work among academic philosophers and the Tractatus his more controversial one in terms of exegesis. There has been a revival of historical interest in the latter, as well as in Wittgenstein’s transitional period. At the same time, the rise of hinge epistemology has seen more scholars devoting more time to his late work, On Certainty. From the journal’s point of view, is interest in these periods divided fairly equally? And are there any other texts by Wittgenstein that you think will get a new lease of life?

Mario Von Der Ruhr

Yes, on the one hand, there has been a major revival of interest in the genesis of the Tractatus. The recent publication of Wittgenstein’s Private Notebooks 1914–1916; David Stern and his colleagues’ work on a unified English translation of the 1914-1916 Notebooks, the Proto-Tractatus, and the Tractatus; digital projects like the University of Iowa Tractatus Map; and a new collection of papers on Wittgenstein’s relation to the Vienna Circle – all this shows that even Wittgenstein’s early work is still being discussed a hundred years on. His so-called ‘middle period’ also continues to be explored, whether in connection with the 1930s diaries or the 1938–1941 Cambridge Lectures, which are important for our understanding of the relationship between the Tractatus and the Philosophical Investigations. It goes without saying that research on the later Wittgenstein, including On Certainty, continues unabated, although I think that we’ll also see more scholarly work on such figures as Rush Rhees, Yorick Smythies, and O. K. Bouwsma.

Lex Academic

How do you view your journal’s role in all these developments? I’m assuming that you would like to see all periods covered, as well as a mix of exegetical and thematic interests. But I’m sure that there are other important things I’ve missed out!

Mario Von Der Ruhr

Yes, that’s right. I would like to see all periods of Wittgenstein’s work covered, although I suspect that certain aspects of that work, such as the private language argument, will no longer feature in PI quite so prominently, simply because they have already been discussed in extenso. In addition, I would be delighted to see further engagement with the writings of the Wittgenstein-inspired ‘Swansea School’ (Rush Rhees, Peter Winch, Roy Holland, Howard Mounce, D. Z. Phillips, Ieuan Lloyd, etc.), and submissions in the area of Philosophy and Literature, Greek Philosophy, Moral Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, and Philosophy of Education.

Lex Academic

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed talking to you about all these things. Thank you so much for taking time off from your busy schedule to talk with me. I wish you and the journal all the very best for the future!

Mario Von Der Ruhr

You are very welcome, Constantine. It has been a genuine pleasure! I wish you and your colleagues at Lex the very best as well.