Why Not Open the Black Box of Journal Editing in Philosophy? Make Peer Reviews of Published Papers Available

&
Metaphilosophy 48 (3):245-257 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Despite general agreement within philosophy that peer review is indispensable, its fairness and reliability is often questioned. This article suggests that such worries can to a large extent be met by adopting the practice that reviews as well as earlier versions of papers are made publicly available when the final version of a paper is published. This suggestion combines the advantages of transparency with the merits of anonymity of reviewers. While there are obstacles to this suggestion, the article argues that it would be worthwhile to implement it because it can help map patterns of conduct and secure confidence in the fairness and reliability of review procedures and journal editing within philosophy.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1111/meta.12240

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,611

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
Learned Inquiry and the Net: The Role of Peer Review, Peer Commentary and Copyright.Stevan Harnad - unknown
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):187-195.
Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review.Professor Robert H. Fletcher & Professor Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Promoting F.A.I.T.h. In Peer review: Five core attributes of effective Peer review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian H. Kerridge, Stacy M. Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Advances in peer review research: an introduction.Arthur E. Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review.Arthur Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Evidence for the effectiveness of Peer review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Aceil Al-Khatib - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (1):275-285.
Referees, editors, and publication practices: Improving the reliability and usefulness of the Peer review system.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (5):859-870.
Commensuration Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1272-1283,.
What We Owe the Author: rethinking editorial peer review.N. J. Crigger - 1998 - Nursing Ethics 5 (5):451-457.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-04-25

Downloads
27 (#594,564)

6 months
6 (#531,961)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Caroline Schaffalitzky
University of Southern Denmark

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.

Add more references