Online research in philosophy

The use of systematic reviews in educational research is a growing phenomenon in the UK, but is highly controversial. This article argues that such reviews have a useful place in a research cycle that wishes to inform and be informed by practice and policy. It proposes and discusses a model of educational research, showing how reviews relate to small or large-scale primary studies.

Although there have been several reviews of the The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, the six reviews in this issue of Artificial Intelligence represent an unusual opportunity to see in one collection how scholars from a wide range of perspectives evaluate MITECS. I found it very useful to consider the reviews side by side and am grateful to the reviewers for providing a number of new insights into the nature of the cognitive sciences. It is also gratifying to see such generally positive assessments from five of the six reviewers (Carr, Dorr, Husbands, Okamato and Peterson) and it is intriguing to consider the more negative comments by Lakoff. In this essay, rather than consider in detail the many points raised by the reviews, I examine more globally how a project like MITECS might be evaluated and how it seemed to fare in light of these reviews.

PIU PUbJlllhollboth invited reviews and unsolicited reviews of new and significant books in . phllolophy. Wo post on our website a list of books for which we seek reviewers, and welcome IdontlOcllltion of books deserving review. Normally reviews are 1000 words.

The purpose of the study was to assess medical journals’ conflicts of interest in the publication of book reviews. We examined book reviews published in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (N=1,876) in five leading medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine. The main outcome measure was journal publication of reviews of books that had been published by the journal’s own publisher, that had been edited or authored by a lead editor of the journal, or that posed another conflict of interest. We also surveyed the editors-in-chief of the five journals about their policies on these conflicts of interests. During the study period, four of the five journals published 30 book reviews presenting a conflict of interest: nineteen by the BMJ, five by the Annals, four by JAMA, and two by the Lancet. These reviews represent 5.8%, 2.7%, 0.7%, and 0.7%, respectively, of all book reviews published by the journals. These four journals, respectively, published reviews of 11.9%, 25.0%, 0.9%, and 1.0% of all medical books published by the journals’ publishers. Only one of the 30 book reviews included a disclosure statement addressing the conflict of interest. None of the journals had a written policy pertaining to the conflicts of interest assessed in this study, although four reported having unwritten policies. We recommend that scientific journals and associations representing journal editors develop policies on conflicts of interest pertaining to book reviews.