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

doi:10.1111/meta.12240

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

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review

200 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Despite general agreement within philosophy that peer review is
indispensable, its fairness and reliability is often questioned. This article suggests
that such worries can to a large extent be met by adopting the practice that
reviews as well as earlier versions of papers are made publicly available when the
final version of a paper is published. This suggestion combines the advantages of
transparency with the merits of anonymity of reviewers. While there are obstacles
to this suggestion, the article argues that it would be worthwhile to implement it
because it can help map patterns of conduct and secure confidence in the fairness
and reliability of review procedures and journal editing within philosophy.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Metaphilosophy
Vol/bind	48
Udgave nummer	3
Sider (fra-til)	245-257
ISSN	0026-1068
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12240
Status	Udgivet - apr. 2017

Emneord

Peer Review
fagfællebedømmelse

Dokumenter og links

10.1111/meta.12240

Open_the_black_box_original_submissionAccepteret manuskript, 273 KB

Viden og værdier
Klausen, S. H. (Deltager), Schaffalitzky de Muckadell, C. (Deltager), Gerken, M. (Deltager), Nottelmann, N. (Deltager), Christensen, A.-M. S. (Deltager), Wolsing, P. (Deltager), Rasmussen, J. L. (Deltager), Petersen, E. N. (Deltager), Mau, S. M. (Deltager), Cenci, A. (Deltager) & Zeuner, L. (Deltager)
1. jan. 2017 → …
Aktivitet: Andre aktiviteter › Andet

Citationsformater

@article{11360cc8f2134d01b10a8a57269eb367,

title = "Why not Open the Black Box of Journal Editing in Philosophy?: Make Peer Reviews of Published Papers Available",

abstract = "Despite general agreement within philosophy that peer review isindispensable, its fairness and reliability is often questioned. This article suggeststhat such worries can to a large extent be met by adopting the practice thatreviews as well as earlier versions of papers are made publicly available when thefinal version of a paper is published. This suggestion combines the advantages oftransparency with the merits of anonymity of reviewers. While there are obstaclesto this suggestion, the article argues that it would be worthwhile to implement itbecause it can help map patterns of conduct and secure confidence in the fairnessand reliability of review procedures and journal editing within philosophy.",

keywords = "Peer Review, fagf{\ae}llebed{\o}mmelse, anonymous peer review, fairness, journal editing, patterns in publishing, reliability",

author = "{Schaffalitzky de Muckadell}, Caroline and Petersen, {Esben Nedenskov}",

year = "2017",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1111/meta.12240",

language = "English",

volume = "48",

pages = "245--257",

journal = "Metaphilosophy",

issn = "0026-1068",

publisher = "Wiley",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why not Open the Black Box of Journal Editing in Philosophy?

T2 - Make Peer Reviews of Published Papers Available

AU - Schaffalitzky de Muckadell, Caroline

AU - Petersen, Esben Nedenskov

PY - 2017/4

Y1 - 2017/4

N2 - Despite general agreement within philosophy that peer review isindispensable, its fairness and reliability is often questioned. This article suggeststhat such worries can to a large extent be met by adopting the practice thatreviews as well as earlier versions of papers are made publicly available when thefinal version of a paper is published. This suggestion combines the advantages oftransparency with the merits of anonymity of reviewers. While there are obstaclesto this suggestion, the article argues that it would be worthwhile to implement itbecause it can help map patterns of conduct and secure confidence in the fairnessand reliability of review procedures and journal editing within philosophy.

AB - Despite general agreement within philosophy that peer review isindispensable, its fairness and reliability is often questioned. This article suggeststhat such worries can to a large extent be met by adopting the practice thatreviews as well as earlier versions of papers are made publicly available when thefinal version of a paper is published. This suggestion combines the advantages oftransparency with the merits of anonymity of reviewers. While there are obstaclesto this suggestion, the article argues that it would be worthwhile to implement itbecause it can help map patterns of conduct and secure confidence in the fairnessand reliability of review procedures and journal editing within philosophy.

KW - Peer Review

KW - fagfællebedømmelse

KW - anonymous peer review

KW - fairness

KW - journal editing

KW - patterns in publishing

KW - reliability

U2 - 10.1111/meta.12240

DO - 10.1111/meta.12240

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0026-1068

VL - 48

SP - 245

EP - 257

JO - Metaphilosophy

JF - Metaphilosophy

IS - 3

ER -

Why not Open the Black Box of Journal Editing in Philosophy? Make Peer Reviews of Published Papers Available

Abstract

Emneord

Dokumenter og links

Fingeraftryk

Relaterede aktiviteter

Viden og værdier

Citationsformater