This paper seeks to provide some of the roles of philosophy in the field of academic ethics.

In this paper I analyze representations of scholarly output for the purpose of identifying corrupt practices. Accordingly, the components of output—price, quantity, and time—are examined. A key part of the analysis is recognizing the unique role that the scholarly community plays in scholarship and the implications this has for the roles of groups other than the scholarly community. Finally, a survey of students indicates that particular representations of scholarly output are viewed by students as unethical.

This paper amounts to a reply to Professor Donald G. Brown’s thoughtful comment on my “Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review”, which appeared in this journal.

J. Angelo Corlett’s response to Leigh Turner defends the current practice of anonymous refereeing in scholarly journals. In reply to him: a slightly refined proposal for signed referees’ reports, with temporarily blind refereeing, would restore to the process of publication, in philosophy at least, the sense of responsibility for rational debate, cooperation, mutual criticism, and simple courtesy which is expected among colleagues in public academic relations, and would also allow more credit for the difficult task for refereeing. Personal observation of (...) the quality of referees’ reports suggests that a gathering of anecdotal evidence would show the need for reform. (shrink)