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
Greek Words Greek words used in classical philosophy 21 Feb 202225 Apr 2022 I prepared this for an undergraduate class last year. I’m putting it up under the Creative Commons license here for people to use. If you have any suggested terms to add, let me know. I’ll keep it up to date. Read More
Biology Darwin and Blumenbach 28 Oct 200918 Sep 2017 I recently became aware that the probable originator of the “biological” species concept, which I prefer to call the Reproductive Isolation Species Conception*, or RISC, was Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840). He presented this in his doctoral thesis On the natural varieties of mankind (1776), and I missed putting it in… Read More
Journalism Amis to Hitchens on agnosticism 25 Apr 201125 Apr 2011 My dear Hitch: there has been much wild talk, among the believers, about your impending embrace of the sacred and the supernatural. This is of course insane. But I still hope to convert you, by sheer force of zealotry, to my own persuasion: agnosticism. In your seminal book, God Is… 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.