peer review
TagHow Much Time Do Journals Give Their Referees?
Elizabeth Hannon, deputy editor of the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (BJPS), has a query about other philosophy journals. (more…)
Philosophia’s Outstanding Referee Award
In 2024, Philosophia: A Global Journal of Philosophy introduced an “Outstanding Referee Award“, joining a small number of journals that single out particular referees for special acknowledgement of their services. (more…)
Reviewing an LLM-written paper (guest post)
A philosopher noticed something off about the paper he was refereeing for a journal. (more…)
Philosophy’s Journal Problem Captured in One Number?
In the first six months of 2025, a top philosophy journal received 403 submissions. Of those, how many did it accept during that time? (more…)
Peer Review, Intellectual Tastes, and Some Fun
Have you ever wanted to tell off the reviewers of your manuscript? (more…)
Arguments, Conclusions, and the Policies of Religious Academic Journals
“We do not publish any work advancing views that are clearly contrary to the established teachings of the Catholic
Church.” (more…)
Nature to Include Reviewer Reports & Author Replies with Published Articles
From now on, “new submissions of manuscripts that are published as research articles in Nature will automatically include a link to the reviewers’ reports and author responses.” (more…)
Two Recent Proposals for Fixing the Referee Crisis in Philosophy
Two philosophers have recently floated proposals for fixing the referee crisis in philosophy. (more…)
Transferring Referee Reports from One Journal to Another
Several publishers have policies that say that a manuscript rejected by one of its journals may be referred to another of its journals. (more…)
Little Things Journals Can Change Now To Improve the Review Process
Maybe you’re among those who are hoping for drastic changes to the practices and norms of reviewing manuscripts for publication in philosophy journals. (more…)
Philosophers Available To Referee
Some people are asked to referee papers for philosophy journals way too much. Others are asked less frequently. (more…)
LLM Chatbots Are Now “Peer-Reviewing” Papers
Just when you thought peer review couldn’t get any worse… (more…)
An Opportunity for Reforming Peer Review (guest post)
“Current dissatisfaction with peer review is such an opportunity for change, so we call for taking advantage of this opportunity as fully as we can. We build our recommendations on the idea that mutual critical engagement is a skill developed through ongoing practice and actual engagement with each other’s ideas.” (more…)
A Journal’s Different Standards for White Male Authors* (updated)
Suppose you’re the editor-in-chief of an academic philosophy journal that employs double-anonymized peer review. The reports on a manuscript are in, and you’re deciding whether to accept the piece for publication. Should the race or sex of the author make a difference to the criteria you bring to this decision? (more…)
The Case for a Peer Review Market (guest post)
“The academic peer review system as it currently stands is frustrating and dysfunctional for many of those who participate in it.” (more…)
Philosophy’s Digital Future (guest post)
“The crucial question for any academic system is how filtering works. Information is cheap. What we want is some way to identify the most valuable information.” (more…)
The Questions a Referee Should Ask of the Paper They’re Reviewing
Concerned that referees for philosophy journals too often recommend a paper be rejected merely because they can think up objections to it, Richard Yetter Chappell (Miami) suggests a set of questions they should focus on instead. (more…)
The Demand for “AI & Philosophy” Hires & Expertise — and Its Precedents
Over 20 jobs have been advertised this season at PhilJobs: Jobs for Philosophers that list among the desired areas of specialization or competence philosophy related to artificial intelligence (AI). (more…)
Philosophy Workshop Introduces New Kind of Prize (guest post)
One of the small number of speaker spots at the Northeast Normativity Workshop (NEN) is reserved for the winner of a prize that’s structured in an innovative manner. (more…)
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…)
Bad Reviewer Experiences
A couple of years ago, we had a discussion of “Philosophy Journal Horror Stories“. Most of the experiences shared were from the perspective of authors. But authors aren’t the only participants in the academic publishing system with complaints (from which we might, one hopes, learn something). (more…)
Refereeing & Freedom of Information Acts (updated)
As noted in an update to a previous post, philosopher David Wallace (Pittsburgh) has made a request under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act for Oxford University Press (OUP) to provide him with correspondence related to certain publication decisions on recent submissions by Alex Byrne (MIT), Holly Lawford-Smith (Melbourne), and Richard Marshall. (more…)
What’s So Bad About “Bad” Philosophy?
In some domains, “overall quality depends on how good the worst stuff is,” while in others, “overall quality depends on how good the best stuff is, and the bad stuff barely matters.” (more…)
Logic Journal Retracts Two Articles After Refutation in Online Discussion
Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic, recently published and then retracted two articles by Janusz Czelakowski (Opole) following a discussion at MathOverflow, a site for professional mathematicians. (more…)
Is Peer Review in Philosophy “Broken Beyond Reasonable Repair”?
Over at The Philosopher’s Cocoon, Helen de Cruz (SLU) laments her experiences with peer review from the perspective of an editor trying to get submissions refereed, saying “it is my strong suspicion that the peer review system is finally broken beyond reasonable repair.” (more…)
Why a Crowd-Sourced Peer-Review System Would Be Good for Philosophy (guest post)
Would “an online, crowd-sourced peer-review system” work better than traditional peer-review as a “quality control device” in philosophy? In a paper forthcoming in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, three philosophers, Marcus Arvan (Tampa), Liam Kofi Bright (LSE), and Remco Heesen (Western Australia), argue for a positive answer to this question. (m..
Increased Specialization & Competent Peer Review
Is increased specialization in philosophy a problem for high-quality peer review? (more…)
“Incompetence”, “Arrogance”, “Misunderstanding”
Last month we had a very active post with readers submitting their “Philosophy Journal Horror Stories.” The following story, recounted by Nathan Salmon (UCSB), fits well with that collection. (more…)