BJPS Introduces “Letters to the Editor”
Has this ever happened to you? You read a philosophy paper, have one brief, specific point to make in response, realize that in order to make that point in print you have to write a whole full-sized article, and then wait for it to be refereed and accepted—and then you decide not to bother?
If so, the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (BJPS) has something for you: letters to the editor.
The new feature was just introduced at the journal. The editors explain:
Some time ago, the BJPS editors took the decision to make discussion notes pass a very high bar to be considered for publication. Our page budget is limited and we wanted to save what resources we have for the most original, substantial contributions to the philosophy of science literature.
This left a gap, however, for responses making a short, sharp point worth having on record but not requiring a full-length paper. This also meant that if non-philosophers, especially scientists—with whom philosophers of science ought to be in dialogue—wished to engage with and respond to our articles, they would need to commit to writing full-fledged philosophy papers. (And, as some wits might have it, it’s bad enough philosophers having to do this without forcing anyone else down that dark road.)
To accommodate this need, we are now accepting letters to the editors…
Letters must be in direct response to a BJPS article, and they must meet the highest standards of collegiality. They may concern factual errors, overlooked literature, objections, counterexamples, or any other matter of philosophical interest. Letters will not be peer reviewed. Publication will be at the discretion of the editors. Authors of target articles will be given the opportunity to respond, after which no further exchanges will be published.
The first BJPS letter to the editor (and author response) is here.
Details about how letters to the editor work at BJPS are here.
(via Beth Hannon)
This is why I have a blog.
Friends of the editor.
I’m a little concerned about the naming of “Letters to Editors.” They may as well call it the Journal of Van Fraassen Studies at this point.
I am not sure I understand the worries raised so far.
It is fairly common for science journals to publish this type of short response (sometimes under the name “Letters”, other times as “Matters arising”), and it is often the case that these pieces are not peer reviewed—the important aspect is rather that the authors of the original piece are offered the chance to respond (and given how slow philosophers are in reviewing, I think that peer review would not work here). Oftentimes these exchanges are quite productive and generate some progress in the debate.
Given this, I think it is a good idea that BJPS has decided to introduce such an option.
What am I missing?
What you’re missing is this Daily Nous and every comment section attracts Debbie Downers.
Also, you don’t seem to be familiar with WiseMan’s work.
(WiseMan, take heart; you are appreciated. I even saw your extremely short-lived comment on an earlier thread.)
This is fantastic. I would love other journals to take something this up. It would really speed up debates and I think also take the pressure off peer review by reducing the number of submissions. Absolutely brilliant development
This is common practice in bioethics and philosophy of medicine where many journals publish replies, discussions and letters to editors. I see no problems here.