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

Caroline Schaffalitzky de Muckadell; Esben Nedenskov Petersen

doi:10.1111/meta.12240

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

Caroline Schaffalitzky de Muckadell, Esben Nedenskov Petersen

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

201 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 language	English
Journal	Metaphilosophy
Volume	48
Issue number	3
Pages (from-to)	245-257
ISSN	0026-1068
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12240
Publication status	Published - Apr 2017

Keywords

anonymous peer review
fairness
journal editing
patterns in publishing
reliability

Documents & Links

10.1111/meta.12240

Open_the_black_box_original_submissionAccepted manuscript, 273 KB

Viden og værdier
Klausen, S. H. (Participant), Schaffalitzky de Muckadell, C. (Participant), Gerken, M. (Participant), Nottelmann, N. (Participant), Christensen, A.-M. S. (Participant), Wolsing, P. (Participant), Rasmussen, J. L. (Participant), Petersen, E. N. (Participant), Mau, S. M. (Participant), Cenci, A. (Participant) & Zeuner, L. (Participant)
1. Jan 2017 → …
Activity: Other activities › Other

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, anonymous peer review, fairness, journal editing, patterns in publishing, reliability",

author = "{Schaffalitzky de Muckadell}, Caroline and Petersen, {Esben Nedenskov}",

year = "2017",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1111/meta.12240",

language = "English",

volume = "48",

pages = "245--257",

journal = "Metaphilosophy",

issn = "0026-1068",

publisher = "Wiley",

number = "3",

}

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

KW - anonymous peer review

KW - fairness

KW - journal editing

KW - patterns in publishing

KW - reliability

U2 - 10.1111/meta.12240

DO - 10.1111/meta.12240

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0026-1068

VL - 48

SP - 245

EP - 257

JO - Metaphilosophy

JF - Metaphilosophy

IS - 3

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

Documents & Links

Fingerprint

Related activities

Viden og værdier

Cite this