philosophy meta-forum

Least and most corrupt journals

Axel

199 day(s) ago

Most corrupt, in no particular order: PPR, Nous, P&PA, JPP, Ethics

Least corrupt: Not so sure.

Peter

199 day(s) ago

Most corrupt, in no particular order: PPR, Nous, P&PA, JPP, Ethics

Axel

So where should I submit if I want to submit to a top journal that is neither poorly run nor perceived as corrupt, but my paper isn't good enough for Phil Review? Not many options, it would seem.

Leon

199 day(s) ago

Most corrupt, in no particular order: PPR, Nous, P&PA, JPP, Ethics

Least corrupt: Not so sure.

Axel

Hm, I'm calling bullshit on this one.

I know pretty nearly nothing about the first four on your list, but there's nothing corrupt at Ethics. I have inside knowledge.

Maria

197 day(s) ago

I think the common complaint about Ethics is not that it's corrupt, but that their review process has too many stages and involves too many cooks in the kitchen. I've heard people complain of very positive outside reviews being disregarded by the editors, very long review times due to all the stages of revisions, sudden unexplained shifts in assessment of the submission, and conflicting revision demands from the various groups involved. And I think we've probably all seen papers that seem to have ballooned in the review process to answer every single objection from every editor, sometimes in 100+ footnotes. They're usually just miserable to read, so I rarely do, and I don't imagine I'm the only one. All this has been more than enough to keep me from ever submitting there.

Maria

197 day(s) ago

They're usually just miserable to read, so I rarely do

Maria

By that I meant the whole articles, not just the footnotes.

Diana

197 day(s) ago

Interesting -- I don't find ETHICS articles miserable at all. It is pretty much my favorite journal to read.

It's true that positive referee verdicts there often don't lead to publication, which is frustrating. Their very low acceptance rate is what keeps me from submitting there, to be honest.

Uma

196 day(s) ago

Some Ethics associate editors have been very active in promoting threir protégés' papers, and their weird procedure helped them a lot in that undertaking. I'm looking at you, David M.

Peter

196 day(s) ago

Ethics has a new policy for handling reviews with increased anonymity:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/690143

Sandra

196 day(s) ago

I'm looking at you, David M.

Uma

David M...iller?

Horace

196 day(s) ago

There's no David M among the associate editors. And just looking at the list, it's not very plausible that 'protegees' have been boosted by any of them.

It's possible I'm overlooking something, but I'm starting to suspect sour grapes.

Ilkka

196 day(s) ago

I've refereed for Ethics and had a slightly odd experience. The paper I read I thought was very bad. I said as much in the initial report and gave some feedback that I had hoped would help. The paper received an R&R and I was asked to review again. I thought it was rare for papers in a journal of that quality to do that. (If my initial report that said the paper was hopeless was not taken seriously, why ask for another?)

Axel

196 day(s) ago

I know pretty nearly nothing about the first four on your list, but there's nothing corrupt at Ethics. I have inside knowledge.

Leon

Really? How about that weird system where you just can't get published if a couple of associate editors don't support you, regardless of what referees say?

Axel

196 day(s) ago

There's no David M among the associate editors. And just looking at the list, it's not very plausible that 'protegees' have been boosted by any of them.

It's possible I'm overlooking something, but I'm starting to suspect sour grapes.

Horace

David M was an associate editor for quite a few years. Of course if you weren't a gradflake you'd know that.

Antony

196 day(s) ago

gradflake

Axel

Lol

Walter

194 day(s) ago

"How about that weird system where you just can't get published if a couple of associate editors don't support you, regardless of what referees say?"

A couple of AEs failing to support doesn't finish a paper that gets to that stage. It's a vote, not a veto. How is that supposed to be corrupt?

I'm 'Leon', by the way, but using Tor.


Allowed tags: 'p', 'b', 'em', 'blockquote'. URLs are automatically linkified.
posts per page.