A collection of links on peer review, the obligation of academics to serve as referees, etc.

Just wanted to collect a few of these things in one place, there’s an interesting discussion in their juxtaposition. Too busy to comment now, though I have commented some in the Overcoming Bias post.

Robin Hanson on why journals don’t publish rejections, discussion ensues in the comments on burdens on peer reviewers and whether we ought to deter bad submissions.

Lee Sigelman on declining to send out articles and getting political scientists off their asses to referee. Jim Johnson puts in his $0.02.

Brian and commenters on philosophers and the obligation to review papers.

Ok, one quick comment. It seems to me that it is good that younger scholars (ahem, self-interest alert) can have the the chance to get good commentary on things by sending papers out without having their rejection publicized or having the thing just roundfiled without review. Yes, this imposes additional burden on older scholars who do the reviewing, but so what? They got the benefit of having their earlier work reviewed. This is how it works. Lots of reviewing ought to be an obligation of the tenured classes, with the implicit bargain being that younger scholars get that advantage and then pay it back later.


Leave a Comment