Peer Overview, Mental Tastes, and Some Enjoyable

I really respect your tireless efforts, and your dedication to our self-discipline. But I fear that these efforts have been misdirected. Your most noble perception within the pursuit of data and understanding, and your conviction that rigor and generality is price each sacrifice, have plunged the system of peer evaluate in a state of absurdity. Far too many papers presenting completely coherent theses get rejected. ^*

Having grown too accustomed to rejections, we are inclined to shake it off as a mere distinction in mental sentiments—luck of the draw—and submit once more, hoping to get a reviewer who occurs to be extra sympathetic to our model and tastes. If everybody has to submit 5 occasions to get their paper accepted, we’d want ten reviewers for each paper. We don’t have that many reviewers, so editors are pressured to desk reject a lot of their submissions. All in all, one’s completely coherent idea exists within the limbo of peer evaluate for years earlier than it sees the sunshine of day. And earlier than that day arrives, there may be the day of main revisions. This is the day the writer, defeated and determined, will betray their very own idea by accepting each wayward suggestion the peer reviewers have made—performing an unimaginable and extremely damaging balancing act to cater to each reviewers, although their feedback usually level in very totally different instructions.

Kaspers’ presents the next suggestions:

Instead of asking whether or not the thesis is true (which, I’ve argued, usually quantities to asking whether or not you agree with it), I would love you to think about the next circumstances. (1) Does it meet fundamental requirements of readability and correctness, e.g., does it clearly and accurately describe the theories and arguments of different philosophers? (2) Is it internally coherent? (3) Does it tackle well-known questions regularly requested by the sector? (4) Are its solutions to those questions prone to be productively authentic to a sufficiently massive share of the readers? If you suppose it does, you ought to just accept it, irrespective of how a lot it offends your personal tastes. Not all that shall be constructed will appease your eye, however the philosophical land is expansive and plentiful. My hovel is however a dot on a map. And whereas I’d agree it’d offend one’s tastes when seen in a context through which it doesn’t belong—like a Venetian palazzo on the Las Vegas Strip—in its correct environment, it truly seems to be fairly charming.

You can learn the entire article here. Discussion welcome.

(by way of Mattia Cecchinato)

Related:

How to Write Referee Reports
An Objection Does not a Rejection Make
Worst Reviewer/Editor Comments You’ve Received
The Questions a Referee Should Ask of the Paper They’re Reviewing
A Little Rough Data about Journal Refereeing in Philosophy
Advice on Refereeing Papers
What’s So Bad about Bad Philosophy?
Notably Good Experiences with Philosophy Journals