The standards for deserving publication in academic philosophy are relatively simple and self-explanatory. A paper should make a significant point, it should be clearly written, it should correctly position itself in the existing literature, and it should support its main claims by coherent arguments. The paper I read sadly fell short on all these points, except the first. (It does make a significant point.) [...]
I still think the paper could probably have been published after a few rounds of major revisions. But I also understand that the editors decided to reject it. Highly ranked philosophy journals have acceptance rates of under 5%. So almost everything gets rejected. This one got rejected not because Yudkowsky and Soares are outsiders or because the paper fails to conform to obscure standards of academic philosophy, but mainly because the presentation is not nearly as clear and accurate as it could be.
So apparently the short version of “why their account has a hard time gaining traction in academic philosophy” is (according to this author) just “the paper’s presentation and argumentation aren’t good enough for the top philosophy journals”.
Relevant excerpt for why exactly it was rejected:
So apparently the short version of “why their account has a hard time gaining traction in academic philosophy” is (according to this author) just “the paper’s presentation and argumentation aren’t good enough for the top philosophy journals”.