JESP Moves to More Transparent Submissions System
The Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (JESP) has adopted the submissions system that was originally created for Ergo, which is known for being relatively transparent and user-friendly.
–
Sarah Paul and Matthew Silverstein, the editors of the diamond open-access journal, write:
We’re happy to announce that the Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy has launched a new website for handling submissions. The site is based on the system designed for Ergo, and we’re grateful to Jonathan Weisberg and the current editors at Ergo for sharing that system with us. It has been adapted to suit JESP’s own review processes, but it retains the transparency and user-friendliness that Ergo is lauded for.
The dashboard allows authors to see exactly what is happening with their submission at each stage of the review process, and the website is simple and easy to navigate for both authors and reviewers. Authors can read the reviews shortly after they come in, and referees are sent each other’s reports as well as the Associate Editor’s decision. Further, the Associate Editors can send referee requests directly through the system, which cuts out the delays that are inevitable when a Managing Editor mediates this process. The transition will also allow JESP to track and publish its acceptance rate and other useful statistics more easily.
It’s good to see worthwhile innovations shared among journals. Are there other exemplary journal practices or operations that should be more widely employed?
Some journals, such as the AJP and BJA, give very clear direction to referees about what they’re looking for, what they’re not looking for, the circumstances in which an R&R is appropriate, and suchlike. Some journals give generic indicators. Some journals give nothing. More journals should be like the AJP and the BJA in this respect.
While I’m excited to see the new submission system for The Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (JESP), I can’t help but harbor some reservations about its name. Given the choice of such a broad and seemingly neutral title, I’m concerned that the journal might be overcompensating for perceived biases in the field. Moreover, the abbreviation “JESP” sounds remarkably similar to “Jezebel,” which, while likely unintentional, could lead to unintended connotations and affect the journal’s perception among its more conservative readership. In a world where journal names can be as revealing as their content, one wonders if “JESP” might actually be a coded message. I hope this journal remains committed to genuinely open and diverse perspectives rather than letting its name suggest otherwise.
This has got to be satire, right? Right?
Hmmm, what to say? I’m certainly enjoying the shadow of doubt in your voice that I might be serious…
Weird.
I assume it’s a reference to the debate a few days ago about the journal named “Free and Equal”, which to some suggested a doubling-down on Rawlsian approaches in political philosophy, even though the editors wanted it to suggest the price of publishing and reading the journal.
You are not the only person to have such doubts, sir! This is why the simple and straightforwardly descriptive title of my new journal, Work on Kantian Ethics, will entirely avoid the question of perceived ideological bias.
What a great title for a for a journal ‘Jezebel– a journal for radical feminist thought (Don’t let the dogs of patriarchy lick your blood!).
How about ‘The Beige Journal of Philosophy – we are not committed to anything!
Ergo changes its policies (eliminating minor revisions). JESP changes its policies (adopting Ergo’s submission system). The onus is now on another journal to change itself to match some feature of JESP, and on another journal to continue the chain, until every philosophy journal has changed in a single way. Only when this process is completed will Ergo be allowed to restart the cycle in reverse by adding back in the major revisions option. All philosophers will exist in this saṃsāra or achieve liberation by leaving academia.
In case you needed further confirmation that PP&A was not worthier of submission than JESP. Ergo’s dashboard is one of the best things in the entire profession. JESP already provided excellent author experience. This is awesome.
PS: I say this as someone who has been rejected at least once by each of those journals. I only published in JESP, which no doubts colors my judgment, but my perfect record of rejections with Ergo hasn’t made me like them less.
Like Groucho Marx, who wouldn’t want to be a member of a club which would have him as a member, I sometimes think I ought to have a higher opinion of journals that turn me down!
I have repeatedly had the thought submitting to Ergo ‘wow, this really is the best submissions system; why don’t others use this’, so it’s a very welcome move. Thanks JESP!
Great news! I love the submissions system at Ergo.
Triple blind review
It seems that they have implemented Ergo’s submission system but without maintaining its transparency. A colleague received this automated message upon submitting:
“Although Open Journal Systems, the online content management system that we use to process and review submissions, allows you to track your submission’s progress through the journal website using the following link and your author ID and password…
…we have found in practice that maintaining our goal of triple blindness at all stages of editorial review requires substantial workarounds to deal with shortcomings in the OJS software.
Our current and best workaround is that once you submit your article, we resubmit it in our system without your name attached at all. What this means in practice is that you will not be able to observe when your submission has been advanced to review or when the referees have submitted reports, because all of that information is being tracked separately. We apologize to those of you who find it fascinating and fulfilling to log in daily or weekly to track your submission’s progress, but unfortunately this is the best strategy that we could come up with to uphold the ideal of triple-blind decision-making at the cost of as little extra time to decision as possible.”
Either your colleague submitted via the old system or it’s an automated message that the JESP folks forgot to scrap. This is the message authors received in the old system.
Nope – pretty sure this is a message in the new system.
I wrote: “an automated message that the JESP folks forgot to scrap”. I know because that’s the message I received when I submitted long before the new system was implemented. It would be odd, given the change announced, if the old message applied verbatim to the new system. Indeed, I don’t believe JESP will use OJS anymore with the new website (someone correct me if I’m wrong). The whole point of adopting the new website seems to be that it is an alternative to OJS. Hence my interpretation of the message. But maybe I am confused.
More interesting than secondhand reports of automated messages would be firsthand reports of what authors can now see in the dashboard. What do you see?
Nicolas is correct: the email quoted above by TDS is one that was sent through the old system (which has now been closed for submissions). JESP is no longer using OJS for submissions, and the new system (based on Ergo’s) is supposed to send a different (and much shorter) confirmation email when a manuscript is submitted. (Note that the new site went live only on August 12, and anything submitted prior to that date would have gone through OJS and triggered the above email.)
If anyone experiences any other glitches or issues with the new site (www.jespsubmissions.org), please let us know!
The Bollettino Telematico di Filosofia Politica employs open peer review: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/it/front-page/. That should be the standard in philosophy.
The Bollettino telematico di filosofia politica’s experiment with open peer review is to my knowledge the best model currently implemented in terms of openness and transparency:
https://commentbfp.sp.unipi.it/#engv