editing

Tag

Rejection Rates Should Not Be a Measure of Journal Quality (guest post)

“If philosophy relies too heavily on rejection rates as a measure for journal quality or prestige, we run the risk of further degrading the quality of peer review.” (more…)

What Can Journals, Publishers, and Authors Do Now to Improve the Publication Process in Philosophy?

A postdoctoral fellow at a prestigious university recently wrote in to share their story of a leading journal that took three months to desk-reject their submission. The experience, they wrote, was an example of “how dysfunctional publishing in philosophy journals can be.” (more…)

OUP Responds to Letter Regarding Gender-Critical Feminism Book

Oxford University Press (OUP) has responded to an open letter circulated earlier this month (the first letter covered in this post) that voiced concerns about its decision to publish next month a book about gender-critical feminism by philosophy professor Holly Lawford-Smith (Melbourne). (more…)

Pay Referees Per Mistake Caught?

James Stacey Taylor, a professor of philosophy at The College of New Jersey, is concerned about the problem that “scholars are not verifying the accuracy of their sources,” and offers up a solution. (more…)

How Editors Can Use PhilPeople to Find Referees

At least part of the “referee crisis” in philosophy comes from the fact that many philosophers are never or only rarely asked to referee. How can editors find these relatively untapped referees? (more…)

A Resignation at Philosophical Studies and a Reply from the Editors (updated w/ comments from Cohen, Dembroff, Byrne)

Last week, Stewart Cohen, professor of philosophy at the University of Arizona, resigned as editor-in-chief from the prestigious academic philosophy journal, Philosophical Studies, a position he held for 25 years. (more…)

Who’s Down With QPPs? (Questionable Publication Practices) (guest post by Mark Alfano)

The following is a guest post * by Mark Alfano (Australian Catholic University & Delft University of Technology).

(more…)

Stakeholder Refereeing for Controversial Ideas: Replies to Some Criticisms

I appreciate the responses, here and elsewhere, to my idea of using stakeholder refereeing as an alternative to the pseudonymous authorship policy planned by the Journal of Controversial Ideas. (more…)

Solidarity Instead of Pseudonymity: an Alternative Strategy for “Controversial Ideas”

Last week we discussed the planned Journal of Controversial Ideas, which will allow its authors to protect themselves from possible negative professional and social consequences of their writings by using pseudonyms. There was a hint of paradox: the proposal to create such a journal was itself so controversial that perhaps it would have been better published pseudon..

A Desk Rejection Scorecard (guest post by Antti Kauppinen)

The following is a guest post * by Antti Kauppinen, currently an Academy of Finland Research Fellow at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Tampere, and soon to be (as of 2018) Professor of Social and Moral Philosophy at the University of Helsinki. It’s about improving desk rejection: the practice of editors at academic journals rejecting papers without ..

Finishing That Damned R&R (Ought Experiment)

Welcome to the tenth Ought Experiment column, in which I lose my bet with Justin that people would get sick of me well before we reached the tenth column. And speaking of self-assured predictions of pending rejection, this week’s question comes from an assistant professor who always feels incredible approach-avoidance whenever s/he tries to respond to referee commen..