Why Not Open the Black Box of Journal Editing in Philosophy? Make Peer Reviews of Published Papers Available

Despite general agreement within philosophy that peer review is indispensable, its fairness and reliability is often questioned. This article suggests that such worries can to a large extent be met by adopting the practice that reviews as well as earlier versions of papers are made publicly available when the final version of a paper is published. This suggestion combines the advantages of transparency with the merits of anonymity of reviewers. While there are obstacles to this suggestion, the article argues that it would be worthwhile to implement it because it can help map patterns of conduct and secure confidence in the fairness and reliability of review procedures and journal editing within philosophy.     

Correcting the Scholarly Record in the Aftermath of Plagiarism: A Snapshot of Current‐Day Publishing Practices in Philosophy

Individuals discovered to have engaged in serial plagiarism in philosophy are few, but the academic publishers falling victim to them are many. Some of the most respected publishing houses in philosophy have recently dealt with the problem of having published plagiarized material. The various responses by these publishers to an instance of serial plagiarism, one that involves forty‐three articles and book chapters, provides a real‐time snapshot of the practices for correcting the scholarly record. The analysis offered in this article yields a twofold conclusion: first, there is relatively little uniformity among publishers in philosophy for responding to plagiarism; and second, in comparison with the natural sciences the discipline of philosophy often falls short of the accepted practices for correcting the scholarly record. The article considers only public, documented cases of academic plagiarism in philosophy and makes no new allegations of plagiarism.     

Publish or Perish

Funds and positions in philosophy should be awarded through systems that are reliable, objective, and efficient. One question usually taken to be relevant is how many publications people have in a group of well‐respected journals. In the context of significant competition for jobs and funding, however, relying on quantity of publications creates a serious downside: the oft‐lamented demand that we publish or perish. This article offers a systematic review of the problems involved in contemporary academic philosophy, and argues that the resulting situation is bad not just for individual philosophers but also for philosophy itself: we are not working as a discipline to as high a standard as we might. The article then suggests some potential solutions, including some more detailed considerations around what seems a particularly promising option: a professional code of conduct for philosophers.     

Improving the Reporting of Health and Psychological Research

A growing body of empirical evidence has consistently demonstrated that much publically and privately funded research is reported in a way that makes it difficult for the findings to be included in evidence syntheses or used by researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and the public. Poorly reported studies thus represent a significant waste of scarce resources. Reporting guidelines are one strategy that has been increasingly used as a method to improve the completeness or usability of primary and secondary research across a broad range of disciplines including psychology. We present a synopsis of two studies investigating the impact of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluation with Nonrandomised Designs statement and factors that affect authors' and journal editors' use of it and other reporting guidelines. We also make recommendations for future guideline development or revisions based on our experiences, provide details of resources for psychologists, and make suggestions for future research and recommendations for improving the transparency of reporting of psychological research.