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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

148 Downloads (Pure)

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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalMetaphilosophy
Volume48
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)245-257
ISSN0026-1068
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2017

Fingerprint

Editing
Peer Review
Philosophy
Confidence
Anonymity
Fairness
Reviewers
Merit

Cite this

@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",
author = "{Schaffalitzky de Muckadell}, Caroline and Petersen, {Esben Nedenskov}",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/meta.12240",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "245--257",
journal = "Metaphilosophy",
issn = "0026-1068",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Why not Open the Black Box of Journal Editing in Philosophy? Make Peer Reviews of Published Papers Available. / Schaffalitzky de Muckadell, Caroline; Petersen, Esben Nedenskov.

In: Metaphilosophy, Vol. 48, No. 3, 04.2017, p. 245-257.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

U2 - 10.1111/meta.12240

DO - 10.1111/meta.12240

M3 - Journal article

VL - 48

SP - 245

EP - 257

JO - Metaphilosophy

JF - Metaphilosophy

SN - 0026-1068

IS - 3

ER -