As noted in an update to a previous post, thinker David Wallace (Pittsburgh) has made a request beneath the UK’s Freedom of Information Act for Oxford University Press (OUP) to supply him with correspondence associated to sure publication selections on latest submissions by Alex Byrne (MIT), Holly Lawford-Smith (Melbourne), and Richard Marshall.
Right here’s the textual content of his request, which he shared in a comment right here yesterday:
In a comment at Brian Leiter’s weblog, Byrne described the supplies he obtained from OUP relating to his e book manuscript:
Simply to clear up any confusion in regards to the studies (after which I’ll fall utterly silent on this concern).
1. An annotated model of the MS. Useful feedback, all minor. Nothing within the feedback to counsel that the e book shouldn’t be revealed. I used to be very grateful to this reviewer, who put in probably the most work by far.
2. Notes taken by Peter of a dialog with a reviewer. Quick, unfavourable. This contained some clear errors, so I wasn’t positive what to make of it.
3. Very constructive.
4. Very unfavourable. Clearly a evaluate from a thinker who works on intercourse and gender; they have an inclination to not be in my fan membership. At the very least this reviewer tried to deal with explicitly among the arguments within the e book, though appeared to misconceive the viewers. Simple sufficient to point out that the reviewer’s complaints have been all fallacious (in response to me!). I used to be not given the chance to attempt to present this, sadly.
5. The MS with Peter’s annotations—nearly phrase decisions and a few locations the place Peter thought the “tone” was off. I had been very attentive to this form of concern earlier.
Once more, what was delivered was very near what was promised (and, it appeared, eagerly anticipated). Nobody stated, “Whoa. We thought it will have *loads* extra philosophy, or be much less of a commerce e book.”
Even with out the reviewers’ studies, which OUP has not but launched, we now have a really completely different image than what individuals may need been imagining in mild of Byrne’s preliminary description of it. This now appears far more much like a quite common story: writer submits manuscript, the reviewers’ feedback are combined and embrace remarks that the writer takes to point errors, lack of charity, a failure to ‘get’ what the writer is doing, the editor thinks it will be extra work than it’s value to get the sorts of adjustments made that might make it the type of e book they wish to publish, and so the manuscript will get rejected.
Whereas it’s doable that political bias (or associated business issues) entered into the choice, the fuller set of information we now have earlier than us now don’t seem to supply a lot (any?) proof of that. After all, if one assumes rampant bias in our publishing establishments in opposition to views on transgender points like Byrne’s (what he may name a “gender vital” place), then one will little doubt see such bias as a part of the reason for the rejection of Byrne’s e book. However Byrne supplied the rejection of his e book as proof that there’s such bias. So assuming such bias was in play right here is simply question-begging.
I believe that if we had had the fuller image from the beginning, the story would have had much less momentum, and possibly not sufficient to roll all the best way to a Freedom of Data Act request, however right here we’re.
At this level, some have raised considerations in regards to the results of Wallace’s request, ought to or not it’s granted. One fear is that any college press affiliated with a public establishment might be topic to FOIA requests (not simply within the UK however within the US and elsewhere), and that this could deter individuals from agreeing to referee for them. For a system that appears already fairly stretched to seek out sufficient reviewers, that could be an issue. In a ballot on Twitter, Eric Schliesser (Amsterdam) asks individuals if they might nonetheless evaluate for OUP in the event that they knew their studies might change into a part of the general public document:
David Wallace might change editorial practices without end if he succeeds at getting OUP to publish all the fabric pertaining to the Byrne manuscript. Attention-grabbing query: would you continue to evaluate e book ms for OUP if you happen to knew it might change into a part of public document
— Digressionsnimpress. (@nescio13) April 20, 2023
In the intervening time, the outcomes counsel publicity would deter many individuals from reviewing. I used to be shocked at this outcome (I answered Eric’s ballot with “positive”). I’m curious what you all take into consideration this.
Dialogue of this freedom of data request, the overall thought of bringing such requests to bear upon college press selections, and their results, are welcome.
(Not welcome: dialogue of first-order issues on intercourse, gender, transgender identification, and so on.)
