AbstractRemco Heesen has recently argued in favor of the editorial practice of triple-anonymous review on the grounds that ``an injustice is committed against certain authors'' under non-anonymous review. On the other hand, he concedes that the information waste of triple-anonymous review does handicap editors, in particular sacrificing a boost in the average quality of accepted papers that would otherwise be conferred by non-anonymous review. In this paper it is observed that by devoting comparatively greater reviewing resources to the papers of unfamiliar authors, editors practicing non-anonymous review can, without loss of information, avoid subjecting authors to the sorts of injustices observed by Heesen. Thus they can reap the efficiency gains of non-anonymous review without sacrificing fairness.
Similar books and articles
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian H. Kerridge, Stacy M. Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Narrative Symposium: Personal Narratives Experiences of Psychiatric Hospitalization.V. Barnard, J. Carson, Eugene Doe, Robin Driben, Anonymous One, Anonymous Two, Charles Kelley, Michael Kerins, D. Millman, Anonymous Three, Viesia Novosielski, Ben Zion & Anonymous Four - 2011 - Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics 1 (1):8-10.
Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study.David B. Resnik, Christina Gutierrez-Ford & Shyamal Peddada - 2008 - Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):305-310.
Narrative Symposium: Political Influence on Bioethical Deliberation.Jean–Christophe Bélisle Pipon, Marie–Ève Lemoine, Maude Laliberté, Bryn Williams–Jones, Dan Bustillos, Anonymous One, Anonymous Two, Ashley K. Fernandes, Anonymous Three, Thomas D. Harter, D. Micah Hester, Anonymous Four, Mary Faith Marshall, Philip M. Rosoff & Giles R. Scofield - 2016 - Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics 6 (1):3-36.
New Data on the Representation of Women in Philosophy Journals: 2004–2015.Isaac Wilhelm, Sherri Lynn Conklin & Nicole Hassoun - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (6):1441-1464.
Jury Theorems for Peer Review.Marcus Arvan, Liam Kofi Bright & Remco Heesen - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Anonymous Sources in News Stories: Justifying Exceptions and Limiting Abuses.David E. Boeyink - 1990 - Journal of Mass Media Ethics 5 (4):233 – 246.
A Code of Conduct for Peer Reviewers and Editors.Steven James Bartlett - 2019 - Willamette University Faculty Research Website.
Blind Manuscript Submission to Reduce Rejection Bias?Khaled Moustafa - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (2):535-539.
Why Not Open the Black Box of Journal Editing in Philosophy? Make Peer Reviews of Published Papers Available.Caroline Schaffalitzky de Muckadell & Esben Nedenskov Petersen - 2017 - Metaphilosophy 48 (3):245-257.
Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads