Subtle conflicts of interest in Book Reviewing

The genius of NDPR lies in the way it consistently provides competent reviewers for a very high number of books published in philosophy on a daily basis. In doing so it functions as one of the main pillars of quality control in the discipline. By providing fair and critical reviews on a wide number of topics approached from (nearly) all philosophical traditions it also functions as a check on the pervasive buddy system within philosophy. I try to start each working day by reading their interesting reviews--I learn a lot, and I am constantly amazed by philosophy's diversity today. It impressive how long and successful NDPR has been at providing this essential service to philosophy. It's a constant cause for celebration! The Guttings and their editorial board deserve praise for providing (what the economists call) this valuable collective good.

Of course, like all human institutions NDPR is imperfect. For example, a few months ago, I posted some reservations on a review that seemed to be written by somebody a bit too close to the Kripke-circle (I quoted the author's own admission about that). Today, I noticed that a book was reviewed by a post-doc in the same (European) institute as the author of the book under review. In Europe a post-doc is not really an 'independent contractor,' but subtly dependent on his/her institutional sponsors. This seems to me the kind of conflict of interest that NDPR would do well to avoid in the future. (It is quite possible that in this instance when the reviewer was approached, there was no such conflict of interest. Even so, that is just an argument for finding another reviewer.) Such a policy would prevent bland reviews and would also block many of the unpleasantries involved when a junior scholar must review his or her indirect paymaster.