« On Surveys of the History of Political Philosophy/Theory | Main | On Summer Remarks by Influential Philosophers »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


A lot to think about here, but I wanted to ask about this point:
"It is striking, however, that we are all supposed to take on trust that the review process of Tuvel's article was dandy--to best of my knowledge there is no public evidence."

Of course, that's what we do with peer review in general, but beyond that, what sort of evidence do you think both could be produced and would be appropriate to produce? I know that if I were a referee, and my work were brought out into this controversy (or any controversy) without my prior approval, even if anonymous, I would be very unhappy, and would certainly never referee for the journal again. So, in thinking about these issues, I would be interested to know what you think is both possible and proper, if anything.

Eric Schliesser

Well, as you may know I am a critic of anonymous review, so I think we need to reform the system anyway. (In fact, in the post I link to a proposal that is meant to improve referee process for socially relevant philosophy.) But I agree with you that as the system is currently organized, having one's review made public -- although it happens in historical cases, often when most participants are dead -- is a justified reason to feel aggrieved. I think there may well be cases where, say conflicts of interest exist, or where something really improper makes it into print that then it might be worth opening the black box of the procedure.


COPE is the Committee on Publication Ethics, which offers a code of conduct. (There is no code of publication ethics.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.


Blog powered by Typepad