"Philosophy journal editors often offer little to no direction on how to handle an R+R and how to navigate referee reports. But other disciplines that's not the case: editors offer guidance on what the author(s) should address, and what's less important. We should change that on our part."--Rachel McKinnon.
In comments on another post, McKinnon rightly notes that often little guidance is offered on how to handle Revise and Resubmits. In my experience, practices very greatly among philosophy journal editors. (I have also received some terrific guidance.) The lack of specific guidance is especially annoying when (i) the referees contradict each other or (ii), more controversially, say silly things. In such circumstances the lack of guidance feels as if editors simply farm out their responsibility to referees; I rarely get the sense that the editor has read the paper in light of the comments. (Yes, I know editing takes up a LOT of work, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to the souls who sacrifice their time and energy.)
But this makes me wonder, what would best practices (realistically) look like? Readers' suggestions welcomed.
Recent Comments