Organization generally means that the paper is structured in such a way that it is coherent and not plagued by unnecessary digressions or bogged down by anything which appears extraneous. Everything relevant to the topic is included in such a way that it is efficient, artful, and completely necessary. Of course, these judgments are relative to the paper being considered. Organization should be evaluated according to the paper’s topic. Occasionally apparent digressions actually play a massive role in making one’s point! Patience is needed for some papers––not everything will be laid out so simply, and this does not automatically mean the organization is poor! Perhaps it is crucial that a paper is structured in a more challenging manner if the topic with which it deals requires it.

Clarity and organization bleed into one another quite a bit, such that well-organized papers are often also, as a consequence of their strong organization, lucid. Clarity may be determined by the paper’s ability to convey points clearly, such that one can follow its argument or exegesis with little difficulty (beyond the subject matter at hand, which may itself be inherently difficult). While clarity may be found in a strong organization that makes the structure of the paper itself clear, clarity also occurs in the prose itself. You may ask yourself: to what degree is this paper’s language clear? Is it encumbered by jargon or does it tactfully make use of jargon when necessary? Does it define important terms? Is its language perhaps too simple, such that it unsubtly tackles the problem at hand? These additional questions concerning clarity are relative both to the paper and the author of the paper.

Argument is related to both organization and clarity insofar as well-argued papers have clearly laid out arguments. If the paper is not organized well and/or isn’t particularly clear, it may be harder to discern any explicit argument. However, argumentation does not necessarily need to be laid down in an explicit, ham-fisted WR 121 style (no strict need for enthymemes!) in order to be good. Subtler modes of argumentation, which involve more complex logic, cover a greater breadth of examples, and go deep into the subject at hand should be allowed so long as a point is made in a strong and effective manner. Even those subtlest arguments made by way of a particularly unique exegesis should be considered! Basic exegesis, in which one simply interprets some text, telling us in basic terms what is being said in some text, is not what we are looking for. However, an exegetical paper that turns into an original interpretation of some text should be considered, so long as the author makes a strong case for their interpretation (i.e. the author argues for their interpretation well).

Originality is more difficult to pinpoint. In one sense, everything creative always already begins resting upon the shoulders of giants, and the creative act always involves making use of prior creations. However, the manner in which ideas are formed, argued, interpreted, and the manner in which said ideas are conveyed through structures, prose, and the like, will help determine “originality” in a paper. A thoughtful, creative approach to the problem tackled by a paper may be one sign of originality; a distinct voice or style with unique concerns may be another sign. Curiously, originality in a work often speaks for itself if one is patient enough to let it do so. Thus an “original” paper may just feel original without any particular reason. Given this is the least clear criterion, it should not be held against an author too much if they do not seem to completely meet it. However, it should be heavily considered when judging whether or not to accept a submission. A highly original paper with organization and clarity issues, for example, should be accepted with revision while an unoriginal paper with the same issues may, perhaps, be rejected. Simple exegesis, for example, is a good case of a lack of originality––it is simply saying what the author of the text it is interpreting said! Etc.

Importance, like originality, is not as easy to determine as organization, clarity, and argument. The first question that ought to be asked regarding the importance of a paper is: “importance for whom?” The importance of a problem is relative to the subject at hand, to the author who is posing the question, and to the general scope of philosophy and the world today. Even seemingly antiquated philosophical topics (say, a paper on medieval Christian philosophy) can be made important and relevant very easily. Thus the topic of a paper should not necessarily determine its importance. However, if the paper does not seem to speak to any particular problem, if it is not a direct response to some significant problem, it may perhaps not be as “important.” This judgment must be made in a similar manner to judgments of originality. The paper must be considered holistically before determining its importance.