Heesen, Remco
(2016)
When Journal Editors Play Favorites.
In: UNSPECIFIED.
Abstract
Should editors of scientific journals practice triple-blind reviewing? I consider two arguments in favor of this claim. The first says that insofar as editors' decisions are affected by information they would not have had under triple-blind 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-blind 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.
Available Versions of this Item
-
When Journal Editors Play Favorites. (deposited 29 Jun 2016 00:36)
[Currently Displayed]
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}