Have you ever been asked to referee a paper by a journal that never accepts your work? (I have!) The eminent metaphysician, Stephen Mumford, writes about it and much more. Here's an excerpt [HT to Jani Hakarrainen on Facebook]:
I will add straight away that clearly we cannot assume malpractice just because a journal publishes work by a board member or other editor. Academics gain such positions chiefly because they are excellent scholars who, of course, should not be excluded from publishing just because of their position. But what we lack is the transparency and public accountability that could reassure us that malpractice never occurs.
I will add straight away that clearly we cannot assume malpractice just because a journal publishes work by a board member or other editor. Academics gain such positions chiefly because they are excellent scholars who, of course, should not be excluded from publishing just because of their position. But what we lack is the transparency and public accountability that could reassure us that malpractice never occurs.--In Times Higher Education.
I doubt the "egregious case" occurs so blatantly in philosophy (although maybe a sociologist of knowledge will prove me wrong). But in philosophy there exists plenty of journal-capture, where an incrowd network protects its franchise around a relatively prestigious (or well indexed) journal and ensures that intellectual friends (and their students) of board members get 'competent' referees.
As I have argued before (see also here, here) one way to create more transparency is to include the names and (online) reports of referees of published papers; Mumford argues for complete transparency over the editorial process. This way the networks become public information.
Recent Comments