When journal editors play favorites

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
14 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)831-858
Number of pages28
JournalPhilosophical Studies
Volume175
Issue number4
Early online date25-Mar-2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr-2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Feminist philosophy of science
  • Bias
  • Peer review
  • Social epistemology
  • Formal epistemology
  • DOUBLE-BLIND
  • SINGLE-BLIND
  • SCIENCE
  • SELECTION
  • QUALITY
  • SEARCH
  • GENDER

Cite this