Latest developments on the Synthese affair 6 Apr 2013 Readers will recall that a couple of years ago, Synthese published a special issue on evolution that carried a scandalous disclaimer by the editors in chief that the papers included were not up to par. I had a paper in that edition. One of the editors in chief, Gualteiro Piccini, has just sent around a call for papers for a yearly issue on Neuroscience and Its Philosophy that includes the following statement: Synthese has recently revised its policy on special issues. All proposals for special issues must be submitted to the editors in chief. I am glad to report that the editors in chief have just approved the 2014 issue, so the tradition will continue at least into next year. Any paper that doesn’t make it into the 2013 issue will automatically be considered for the 2014 issue. It looks like they will now effectively censor special issues to ensure that the papers included meet their (unspecified) standards. Philosophy
Epistemology Why agnostics don’t have holidays 6 Aug 2010 [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bp2Eqrvuis&feature=player_embedded] Courtesy of Leiter Read More
Philosophy My Absent Career 4: Gary and Neil 8 Dec 20221 Jan 2023 At the end of my masters I went back to earning a living, and got a new job at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research (or as we called it, WEHI), which is just across the road from the University of Melbourne. This would have been around… Read More
Cognition Are emotions 2D? 7 Oct 20137 Oct 2013 I recently became aware that there is a new development in emotion classification. Previously, as far as I knew, emotions were thought to be human universals, give or take some variation (such as the emotion “metagu” among the Ifaluk islanders, see Linquist 2007) and researchers like Paul Ekman, who works as… Read More
“… the tradition will continue at least into next year …” Some “tradition”! Unspecified standards are the best, since there’s no way anyone can live up (or down) to them.
If I remember correctly, the papers were previously handled by guest editors and the editors in chief added the disclaimer afterwards. The specific changes in policy seem to be the following (taken from the homepage of that journal): “-A minimum of 3 Editors in Chief have to accept the proposal as fitting the scope of Synthese to be accepted -Guest Editors arrange external peer review via Editorial Manager (set up via Springer) and are responsible for the content of the papers they accept. Accepted papers for the Special Issue typically have received at least two final positive recommendations by reviewers -Completed Special Issues, including a brief editorial introduction by the guest editors, are subjected to a second peer review of the Editors in Chief of Synthese, focusing on the quality of the review procedure (the usual review standards apply to Special Issues) * Submissions to special issues are restricted to those who have made previous arrangements with the relevant guest editor(s). Please note that articles including impolite tone, personal attacks, libel, defamation, grossly unfair criticism, or deliberate misrepresentation are excluded from all issues of Synthese. If there is a possibility of an appearance of any of these in any of the articles included in the proposed Special Issue, such an article must be flagged by the Guest Editor, and if it passes the external peer review (of content) it must be given to the Editors in Chief for an additional review and a vote.” Dash 3 specifies that a special issue will be reviewed a second time by the editors in chief and the last paragraph seems to specify the criteria of their review are.
Yes, that last paragraph is a direct change based on how they misbehaved with Barbara Forrest’s paper. In effect they want to be able to cover themselves if anyone else does a proper analysis of anyone who may make claims that can’t be supported but who has sufficient pull to get the EiC’s to retract it. While I understand that Synthese is a paper journal of ideas, ideas do not live in some abstract Platonic heaven. And when the behaviour of those who promote ideas directly relates to what those ideas mean, as they do in the ID camp, Synthese is putting political and legal considerations over analysis.
Yeah, well, I guess I would have to read Forrest’s paper and the disclaimer, in order to be able to go on discussing this issue. Unfortunately, the paper is behind a pay-wall. The abstract looked well-mannered though.