Involved that referees for philosophy journals too usually advocate a paper be rejected merely as a result of they’ll suppose up objections to it, Richard Yetter Chappell (Miami) suggests a set of questions they need to concentrate on as a substitute.
They’re:
(1) What (if something) is fascinating and unique about this paper? How fascinating is it? (How a lot mild does it shed on previously-shadowy areas of logical house? How philosophically essential is the illuminated content material?)
(2) Are there any egregious errors or oversights that will must be addressed earlier than the paper was doubtlessly publishable?
(3a) How cogent are the paper’s central arguments?
(3b) Do you count on most different specialists would share your verdict, or is there important room for cheap disagreement right here?
(3c) How possible is it {that a} cheap, well-informed (however presently agnostic) spectator of the talk would shift their credences because of studying this paper?
(4) In comparison with different papers not too long ago printed on this journal, is that this paper (vastly or barely) kind of more likely to be (a) broadly cited, (b) assigned in graduate seminars, (c) considerably reshape the talk, and (d) nonetheless learn or remembered a century therefore?
He provides:
With some great exceptions, referee experiences in philosophy are inclined to systematically obese (usually idiosyncratic) judgments about whether or not the argument is profitable (3a). Questions like 3b & 3c strike me as significantly better for functions of goal skilled analysis. And questions (1) and (4) strike me as most essential to the general analysis {that a} paper warrants.
Observe that scoring properly by the factors in (4) appears adequate for warranting publication in a prime journal. No matter complaints a referee may need a couple of paper, they clearly shouldn’t deprive the self-discipline of a paper that might show so important and broadly valued. These are clearly the papers that journals ought to need probably the most.
You’ll be able to learn his full feedback here.
Associated:
“How to Write a Referee Report”
“Advice on Refereeing Papers“
