How to Start Your Own Journal: Philosophy of Physics

David Wallace is a philosopher of physics at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the editor-in-chief of the open-access journal Philosophy of Physics. Colin Stuart spoke to him about the journal's origins, the unique way it is funded, and the challenges of bridging two different disciplines.

Why was Philosophy of Physics launched?

Back in the mid 1990s, Jeremy Butterfield (a philosopher and FQxI member now at the University of Cambridge, UK) and others set up Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics—an Elsevier journal—as the main venue for philosophy of physics. In 2020, Elsevier merged it with another journal, effectively leaving philosophy of physics without a dedicated journal.

So, during the pandemic, about 100 people met virtually in a kind of town hall and decided to explore setting up a new journal. A steering group was formed, which eventually founded a Philosophy of Physics Society to own the journal. Then they issued a call for editors. I applied and was offered the position of editor-in-chief.

Are the authors, reviewers, or editors paid? How does the funding work?

No one is paid. I don't get an honorarium, and no one else does either. The journal runs on a shoestring. My university, Pittsburgh, supports me by freeing up some of my teaching time, so in that sense they contribute in kind.

The traditional model—selling subscriptions—is increasingly unviable now that distribution can be free and instant online. But journals still have costs, especially copy editing and typesetting. Our model is novel: to submit, you have to be a member of the Philosophy of Physics Society. Membership fees are steeply tiered—higher for people with permanent positions and research funds, much lower or zero for grad students. The society exists mainly to support the journal. Right now, we also have transitional funding from our publisher, LSE Press, which is gradually tapering off. I don't see the financials directly, but the treasurer tells me we're cautiously optimistic.

Is there a tension between the traditions of philosophy and physics in terms of publishing?

There are definitely differences. This is an interdisciplinary journal, but institutionally it is more a philosophy journal. We borrow a few ideas from physics publishing. For instance, in philosophy, peer review is typically double anonymous—authors and reviewers don't know each other's identities. In physics, that is less common. Reviewers often know who the authors are anyway. So our policy is formally double anonymous, but we don't police whether reviewers happen to recognize the author. We also accept author suggestions for reviewers, which is common in physics but not philosophy. Still, we ensure at least one reviewer is independently selected.

What have been the biggest challenges in running the journal?

Honestly, it has been a surprisingly smooth ride. Philosophy of physics is a small, cohesive community and the journal has wide buy-in. Finding referees is time-consuming but not difficult—probably more than 90% of people I ask agree. That's unusually high.

I make an effort to personalize requests and explain why I'm asking that person specifically, rather than sending automated emails. That helps.

Are there plans to scale up the journal?

Not really. We are publishing about as much as a journal in this field should—maybe 20 to 30 papers a year. We are getting excellent work from both senior and junior scholars.

Philosophy of physics isn't a huge field. I don't want us to become monopolistic. A pluralistic publishing ecosystem is good. What I do want is to make sure we're open to work across all areas: quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, cosmology, general relativity, historical and metaphysical approaches, highly technical or more practice-oriented work. We've tried to reflect that in our editorial board. I think that's been mostly successful, though we do skew a bit technical.

More broadly, what changes would you like to see in publishing?

The old model of paywalls is becoming unsustainable due to preprint archives and policy pressure from governments. Still, running a journal costs money. In philosophy, we can't assume the same level of technical proficiency as in physics. So we still need professional typesetting. Ideally, we need a funding model that covers those costs and advances that reduce them.

Our journal's budget is in the low thousands of dollars, which is tiny in the context of an academic field. But there's no obvious, coordinated way to fund it. Submission fees and publication charges have led to predatory practices.

Maybe AI will help reduce production costs, but it's not clear yet.

Is the journal article still the best way to disseminate research?

Probably not, but it's still functional. We've been intentionally conservative to build legitimacy in the field. We might explore innovations later. Peer review is time-consuming and imperfect, but there's no better quality filter. Post-publication review sounds good in theory, but it requires sustained community engagement, which may not be realistic.

Preprint archives already ensure instant dissemination. The journal mainly serves a credentialing function. That system is flawed but better than the alternatives. The format also supports scholarly norms like citation and source credit. Research needs a stable public record. Article length—5,000 to 10,000 words—isn't arbitrary; it suits attention spans and the scope of most philosophical arguments. So while the journal system isn't perfect, it works well enough—especially in our field.

Photo courtesy of David Wallace.