It's time for nominations for the 2004 edition of the Philosophers' Annual, which attempts to select the "ten best" articles published in a given year. The way this works is that each member of a 43-person editorial board submits up to three nominations, and then the four editors choose ten articles from this group. Results are online for 1978-2001, 2002, and 2003.
I'm on the editorial board, and I'd welcome suggestions for nominations. It would be good to cast as wide a net as possible. It's sometimes said that selections for the Annual reflect connectedness in the profession, and that the same authors are selected repeatedly. So I'm especially interested to hear about articles and authors that might otherwise be overlooked. But suggestions of all sorts (except self-nominations), in all areas, are welcome. I can't promise to read everything that's suggested, but maybe other members of the editorial board will be reading this too, and in any case it's interesting to hear about good work.
(I notice that two of the papers mentioned in a corresponding thread last year on Brian Weatherson's site made it onto the 2003 list. See also the discussion of 2004 epistemology papers at Certain Doubts.)