PSA2016: The 25th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association

Full Program »

Why Journal Editors Play Favorites

This paper investigates the question whether scientific journals should practice triple-blind reviewing. I consider two kinds of arguments in favor of triple-blinding: a social justice argument and an epistemic argument. I use a formal model to precisify the arguments and explore the circumstances under which they are valid. While the social justice argument is valid in a large range of circumstances, the epistemic effects of blinding journal submissions turn out to be ambiguous: there are potentially both epistemic benefits and costs to revealing author information to journal editors. In the end I endorse blinding for most cases.

Author Information:

Remco Heesen    
Department of Philosophy
Carnegie Mellon University

 

Powered by OpenConf®
Copyright©2002-2015 Zakon Group LLC