Authors
Joel Katzav
University of Queensland
Abstract
Recently, mainstream philosophy journals have tended to implement more and more stringent forms of peer review, probably in an attempt to prevent editorial decisions that are based on factors other than quality. Against this trend, we propose that journals should relax their standards of acceptance, as well as be less restrictive about whom is to decide what is admitted into the debate. We start by arguing, partly on the basis of the history of peer review in the journal Mind, that past and current peer review practices attest to partisanship with respect to philosophical approach. Then, we explain that such partisanship conflicts with the standard aims of peer review, and that it is both epistemically and morally problematic. This assessment suggests that, if feasible, journals should treat all available and proposed standards of acceptance in philosophy as epistemically equal, and that philosophical work should be evaluated in terms of the novelty and significance of its contribution to developing thought in ways that are of value. Finally, we show, in a programmatic way, that improving the current situation is feasible, and can be done fairly easily.
Keywords Metaphilosophy  Applied philosophy  History of analytic philosophy
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

View all 66 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3):635-663.
On the Emergence of American Analytic Philosophy.Joel Katzav & Krist Vaesen - 2017 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 25 (4):772-798.
Analytic Philosophy, 1925–69: Emergence, Management and Nature.Joel Katzav - 2018 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 26 (6):1197-1221.
Analytic Philosophy, 1925-1969: Emergence, Management and Nature.Joel Katzav - 2018 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.Mehdi Dadkhah, Mohsen Kahani & Glenn Borchardt - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1603-1610.
The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Commensuration Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1272-1283,.
Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry.David Shatz - 2004 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-11-15

Total views
127 ( #90,555 of 2,497,798 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
22 ( #38,726 of 2,497,798 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes