Andrew Cullison

Jon Cogburn has been on a roll with some interesting posts discussing the ethics of blind review. Here is his most recent installment. He argues that blind reviewers ought to take what he calls The Good Samaritan approach to reviewing (as opposed to the Professor Angrypants or Joe Friday approach). What are those approaches? Read [...]

Filed under: philosophy, philosophy journals by Andrew Cullison
No Comments »

UPDATE [3/9/2007] - How To Make the Move To Open Access JournalsUPDATE [3/8/2007] - I just thought of Pro #12 this morning. See below.UPDATE [3/8/2007] - I just thought of Pro #13 this afternoon. See below.UPDATE [3/8/2007] - I’m also addressing - Con #6. See below.In a previous post, I claimed that philosophy journals should [...]

Filed under: open access, philosophy, philosophy journals by Andrew Cullison
No Comments »

Jon Cogburn has an interesting post on the blind review process for philosophy journals here. He also gives us a promissory note to post more on this issue. UPDATE: Here’s the promissory note.

Filed under: philosophy, philosophy journals by Andrew Cullison
No Comments »

Editing and refereeing for journals is a thank-less job that you don’t get paid for. Editors and referees do this out of the goodness of their heart. So it’s weird to have a publishing company make money off of this labor. At one time they could justify the charge because they were the only way [...]

Filed under: open access by Andrew Cullison
2 Comments »

I’ve heard quite a few journal horror stories from professional philosophers over the past few years. Also, in a recent post, I noted that there have been quite a few discussion threads that highlight major issues concerning peer reviewed philosophy journals. I’m going to start tracking these discussion threads. Whenever I find a new discussion [...]

Filed under: philosophy, philosophy journals by Andrew Cullison
No Comments »

There is an interesting discussion over at PEA Soup about when (if at all) to request a re-read. The discussion thread leads to an interesting discussion of a more general problem concerning the blind referee process. There have been quite a few posts in the blogosphere highlighting problems with the peer review process in philosophy [...]

Filed under: philosophy, philosophy journals by Andrew Cullison
1 Comment »