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…)
The dirty secret of philosophy is that we have insanely low acceptance rates—often well under 10% —for papers. This low rate is only defensible if you think that publication in philosophy has the kind of inductive risk that any false positive leads to society’s catastrophe. Nobody thinks that. (more…)
Once again, Jonathan Weisberg (Toronto), one of the managing editors of Ergo, looks at the journal’s data to see what, if anything, can be learned from it. This time, he focuses on what difference the gender of an article’s referee makes. (more…)
SciRev is a multidisciplinary website for researchers to share their experiences with various journals so they can select not just appropriate but also efficient venues for their work. It is run by a pair of economics professors. They describe the aim of the site this way: (more…)
Some members of our profession are referee superstars, being asked multiple times a week to referee papers for journals (and often saying ‘yes’), while others are well-qualified but unnoticed, and are almost never asked to referee. The result is that some philosophers have become unfairly overburdened, journal editors have been having increased difficulty finding re..
Everyone involved in the academic journal publishing process, it seems, is overworked. It’s true of the editors, of course, but also of the referees who say yes. And when people are overworked, they often become especially concerned with how their time is used up, by themselves and others, and frustrated when they feel their time is wasted. (more…)