An Opportunity for Reforming Peer Review (guest post)
“Current dissatisfaction with peer review is such an opportunity for change, so we call for taking advantage of this opportunity as fully as we can. We build our recommendations on the idea that mutual critical engagement is a skill developed through ongoing practice and actual engagement with each other’s ideas.” In the following guest post, Samantha Copeland and Lavinia Marin (Delft University of Technology) put forward the case for an “open forum” model of peer review in philosophy. The post is based on the fuller discussion and argument in their “‘It takes a village to write a really good paper’: A normative framework for peer reviewing in philosophy” which was published in Metaphilosophy earlier this year. This is the second in a series of weekly guest posts by different authors at Daily Nous this summer. (Posts in this series will remain pinned to the top of the homepage for several days following initial publication.) An Opportunity for Reforming Peer Review by Samantha Copeland and Lavinia Marin We recently published an article on peer review and reforming the way that publications are produced, reviewed, and disseminated in academic philosophy. We had been discussing this issue for a while, and more and more was being written on the problem by philosophers on social media and in print. Good points were being brought up about the dominance of the English language and its effect on how we evaluated philosophical arguments, and proposals for reform included one we found particularly interesting: the “open forum”. This format advocates for a public, iterative, and community-driven peer review process. What would this look like in academic philosophy? Pre-publication and post-publication forums have been proposed, whether run by journals or societies, often similar to arXiv (hosted by Cornell). We propose that peer review should also happen in a similarly open context. On our proposal, an archive would host not only papers, but also comments and advice from others alongside it, as part of a discussion and improvement process initiated by authors who post their work. The system would not be anonymized. It’s a risky idea. Take, for example, the concerns expressed over the Matthew Effect in the ongoing discussion in the literature. Heesen and Bright (2021) suggest that their..
The post https://dailynous.com/2024/06/18/an-opportunity-for-reforming-peer-review-guest-post/
.
https://dailynous.com/2024/06/18/an-opportunity-for-reforming-peer-review-guest-post/
Daily Nous (RSS Feed) /
npub10x…rv5vz
2024-06-18 12:44:13
Author Public Key
npub10xew28qqak8u05htfpffppfk7aw32em840tw5texrts0p72kvr2qfrv5vzPublished at
2024-06-18 12:44:13Event JSON
{
"id": "c630866693bce3161f160896e5dbe6123da2bced6d118796c629d60a3fbcf0f1",
"pubkey": "79b2e51c00ed8fc7d2eb4852908536f75d156767abd6ea2f261ae0f0f95660d4",
"created_at": 1718714653,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"Publishing"
],
[
"t",
"bias"
],
[
"t",
"journals"
],
[
"t",
"peer review"
],
[
"t",
"publishing"
],
[
"t",
"Summer 2024 Guest Post Series"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://dailynous.com/feed/#https%3A%2F%2Fdailynous.com%2F2024%2F06%2F18%2Fan-opportunity-for-reforming-peer-review-guest-post%2F",
"rss"
]
],
"content": "An Opportunity for Reforming Peer Review (guest post)\n\n“Current dissatisfaction with peer review is such an opportunity for change, so we call for taking advantage of this opportunity as fully as we can. We build our recommendations on the idea that mutual critical engagement is a skill developed through ongoing practice and actual engagement with each other’s ideas.” In the following guest post, Samantha Copeland and Lavinia Marin (Delft University of Technology) put forward the case for an “open forum” model of peer review in philosophy. The post is based on the fuller discussion and argument in their “‘It takes a village to write a really good paper’: A normative framework for peer reviewing in philosophy” which was published in Metaphilosophy earlier this year. This is the second in a series of weekly guest posts by different authors at Daily Nous this summer. (Posts in this series will remain pinned to the top of the homepage for several days following initial publication.) An Opportunity for Reforming Peer Review by Samantha Copeland and Lavinia Marin We recently published an article on peer review and reforming the way that publications are produced, reviewed, and disseminated in academic philosophy. We had been discussing this issue for a while, and more and more was being written on the problem by philosophers on social media and in print. Good points were being brought up about the dominance of the English language and its effect on how we evaluated philosophical arguments, and proposals for reform included one we found particularly interesting: the “open forum”. This format advocates for a public, iterative, and community-driven peer review process. What would this look like in academic philosophy? Pre-publication and post-publication forums have been proposed, whether run by journals or societies, often similar to arXiv (hosted by Cornell). We propose that peer review should also happen in a similarly open context. On our proposal, an archive would host not only papers, but also comments and advice from others alongside it, as part of a discussion and improvement process initiated by authors who post their work. The system would not be anonymized. It’s a risky idea. Take, for example, the concerns expressed over the Matthew Effect in the ongoing discussion in the literature. Heesen and Bright (2021) suggest that their..\nThe post https://dailynous.com/2024/06/18/an-opportunity-for-reforming-peer-review-guest-post/\n.\n\nhttps://dailynous.com/2024/06/18/an-opportunity-for-reforming-peer-review-guest-post/",
"sig": "e8406229918df838250d46d60cbc2a74c147261be05cfc42393eeba3524d0c1999902ecb5c247f2defb243d1fd33509cce63fbb3c74c07ed9ef1020fd1ee6671"
}