When journal editors play favorites

Philosophical Studies 175 (4):831-858 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Should editors of scientific journals practice triple-anonymous reviewing? I consider two arguments in favor. The first says that insofar as editors’ decisions are affected by information they would not have had under triple-anonymous review, an injustice is committed against certain authors. I show that even well-meaning editors would commit this wrong and I endorse this argument. The second argument says that insofar as editors’ decisions are affected by information they would not have had under triple-anonymous review, it will negatively affect the quality of published papers. I distinguish between two kinds of biases that an editor might have. I show that one of them has a positive effect on quality and the other a negative one, and that the combined effect could be either positive or negative. Thus I do not endorse the second argument in general. However, I do endorse this argument for certain fields, for which I argue that the positive effect does not apply.
Reprint years
2017, 2018
PhilPapers/Archive ID
HEEWJE
Revision history
First archival date: 2017-03-27
Latest version: 2 (2018-03-12)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Heesen, Remco & Bright, Liam Kofi

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-03-25

Total views
92 ( #26,309 of 41,569 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #32,262 of 41,569 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.