“Anything they said about why this happened was at such a general level and in vague formulations, that those in the room didn’t really get any new factual information.”
That’s Ingrid Robeyns (Utrecht), writing about the session that Wiley put on at the Eastern Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association (APA) yesterday morning about the Journal of Political Philosophy debacle (see here and here).
In a post at Crooked Timber, Professor Robeyns describes some of what occurred at the meeting. Here are some excerpts:
- “On the particular case of JPP and the firing of Bob Goodin, they didn’t really say anything, except that they “couldn’t continue working with the editor and fulfil their role as a publisher”. And when they described that role, there was lots of talk about the needs of ‘operational standardization’. Apparently, even within that small room, they could not provide details.”
- “Jonathan Quong, a member of the editorial board of JPP and now of the new journal Political Philosophy reminded Wiley that more than one thousand political philosophers had signed the petition in which they pledged not to submit, referee, or provide editorial services for the journal. So, he concluded, JPP doesn’t have a future. To which Wiley responded ‘thank you for that statement’—and that was it.”
- “Someone asked what would happen with the papers that are submitted now, given that there is no editorial team. They are received, and the authors get notified that the papers can currently not be processed. In essence, until there is a new editorial team, the papers are not being reviewed. I think under those conditions, it is unwise for anyone to submit a paper to JPP.”
- “Jonathan Quong noted that Wiley mentioned repeatedly during the meeting that they are not political philosophers and that they respect academic independence. ‘Yet how can they then appoint a new editorial team?,’ he asked. To this question, Wiley responded that they are in touch with the community, and that they are gathering advice on whom to ask for these editorial roles. No names were mentioned.”
In her post, Robeyns notes that there are legitimate concerns about publishing that are worth taking up, such as low journal acceptance rates (see here), whether journals should adopt triple-anonymous review (the new Political Philosophy will be sticking with double-anonymous review), and “that it’s really hard to publish on some topics in political philosophy in the journals that we have, such as nonwestern political philosophy.” But, she says, such concerns, and whatever criticisms there might have been about how the old Journal of Political Philosophy was run, “we must not let that be used as ammunition by Wiley to let them get away with what they did.”
Read her full post here.