I was checking out Ethics Etc today, and I notice a poll they have up. Here’s the question.
In deciding whether to recommend acceptance or rejection of a paper for a journal, should one base one’s decision in part on the reputation, editorial policies, etc. of the journal?
As of today 187 people have voted. 74% say “Yes” and 26% say “No”.
Let’s assume that almost all participants in the survey are professional philosophers. If that assumption is correct, then philosophers are, generally, more likely to recommend a sub-par paper for publication at a journal that they consider to be sub-par. Now let’s ask ourselves: How does a journal rise in prestige? Presumably by publishing a large number of very high quality papers. But now suppose you’re the editor of a 2nd tier journal with ambitions to raise yourself into the top tier. You’re at a disadvantage because 3/4 of your referees are going to recommend papers that they don’t think are worthy of a top-tier journal. This basically results in a glass-ceiling for 2nd tier journals.
Part of the reason I’m concerned about this has to do with – can you guess – open access journals. I have a dream that one day philosophers will have a plethora of wonderful, high-quality open-access journals to enjoy. However, most open-access journals are not likely to start out in the top-tier when they leave the gate. I’m worried that an editor that starts up an open-access journal might get caught in some 2nd tier rut that will be difficult to break out of.
How can an open-access journal avoid this? My best guess is that it needs to be made explicit to reviewers what the aims of the journal are. If you’re an open access alternative to Analysis (hint-hint Famous-Philosopher-With-Clout-Who-Could-Pull-This-Off) and you only want papers that are Analysis-quality, then you’ll need to make that clear to your referees.
I think open access journals might initially succeed by piggy backing on the reputation of not only the board but also by making strategic alliances with existing institutions. Suppose, for instance, some institution, not necessarily a department, it could be a program like Arche, or the Center of Human Values, or the Institute of Philosophy associated itself with an open-access journal. If the material published was of sufficiently high quality, then they should succeed. I reckon the main obstacles are political—finding the will to do it and find the right partners in the right circumstances.