editing
TagRejection After Positive Referee Reports
When an author gets all fairly positive referee reports (acceptance, conditional acceptance) on a manuscript, but the editors decide not to accept it, what kind of explanation, if any, is it reasonable for the author to expect? (more…)
How Can Journals Better Serve Authors?
A philosopher who was recently appointed to an editorial position at an academic journal has a question for authors. (more…)
OUP’s Prestige Monopoly (guest post)
Oxford University Press (OUP) has an excellent reputation in philosophy and publishes a lot of philosophy books. That seems like a good thing, but are there reasons to be concerned by the publisher’s disciplinary dominance? (more…)
Transitioning a Journal to Triple-Anonymous Review
What’s involved in converting a journal’s editorial practices from single- or double-anonymous review to triple-anonymous review? (more…)
A Norm for Self-Citation (guest post by Colin Klein)
“How to self-cite without giving away your identity? I’ve seen two ways of doing it over the years. One is great, and one is really frustrating. We should all stop doing the frustrating one.” (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).
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..