This is Wesbuc's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Wesbuc's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Thank you for articulating these concerns. By way of historical analogy, the concerns that underlie the current crisis in psychology were well known but went unheard for at least a decade before people started to realize just how bad things had gotten and called for wide scale reforms. Hopefully at some point philosophy as a field will arrive at a similar realization and start taking methods more seriously.
Presumably the goal of doing this is to establish just or epistemically good outcomes, which in turn, would end up informing what people mean when they say a course is sufficiently diverse. But I suppose you could test that, in other words, why people want to diversify their courses and if rates they find acceptable cohere with their stated goals. It would be interesting to know if any one reason takes priority, for example because they think it will increase interest of students, because they think valuable material is being overlooked, because it is fair in and of itself, because they feel political pressure to do this, etc.
Shane and In the Know: I said there is nothing convincing I am aware of, asked for evidence, and simply that those things led me to personally doubt the hypotheses. Google has Philosophical Psychology, Review of Philosophy and Psychology, and Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences in the top ten of the field, unlike any subjective ranking I have seen before, as well as a rank order of journals at odds with other reputational surveys I am aware of. Additionally, I linked to PLoS coverage of a paper demonstrating that impact factors do not predict citation very well in some fields where they are relied on heavily, which made me wonder how good informal reputation polling could possibly be at predicting that practice? Marcus: thank you for those data. There is some overlap for sure but I am also unsure what to make of other aspects of it.
I don't know of any convincing evidence but data from links below encouraged me to question those two hypotheses about subjective JLMs: Can you offer your readers concrete evidence for your hypotheses that publishing in a journal ranked subjectively lower predicts quality or readership or citation?
I am skeptical about some of your journal level metric hypotheses. What evidence is there that people are more likely to read and/or cite things in better ranked philosophy journals over lower? Most evidence I've seen does not support this hypothesis or even points in the opposite direction. I was also wondering what evidence there is to support the claim that higher acceptance rates in philosophy journals supports the existence of "the very real risk that, by publishing in low-ranked journals, one is more likely to actually publish bad--even embarrassing--work"? Extremely low acceptance rates of elite journals could just as well reflect the need for sensational results, which has been associated with QRPs and other negative aspects of research.
(the empirical evidence on blinding is completely inconclusive, so that suggests that, for now, we should decide on ethical grounds. and the ethical considerations seem, to me, to squarely favor blinding.) Mostly agree but there are some ethical considerations on the other side. For example, take the review process in philosophy where anonymity is at least the stated norm. This has allowed a lot of mistreatment, unprofessionalism, etc, of authors that may not be as present in more open reviews. Like maybe if you had to write to an actual person norms of human decency would kick in at some point. Another potential harm might be to representation. Openness is probably the easiest way to ensure acceptable representation rates in journals, you just know who the authors are and can ensure a preestablished rate of publication among all the excellent papers vying for spots.
Toggle Commented Jun 28, 2016 on don't you know who i am? at sometimes i'm wrong
Thank you for this paper. It is sad the lengths the field will sometimes go, including seemingly never ending games with “intuition” to avoid engaging with incredibly obvious attempts to improve inquiry.
Comments -- Of course I am not puzzled about those difficulties. Everyone faces them to some degree, even those working at larger universities. This blog has made some excellent contributions as well in fact, in terms of meetups and conferences (did you also have a digital reading group, Marcus?). In any event, however difficult it is to get extensive feedback is orthogonal to my view the moral proposal on offer is a misuse of the peer review system.
Wesbuc is now following The Typepad Team
Apr 13, 2016