A reader wrote in the other day asking if know of any online discussions of "best practices for journal reviewers." Now, we have discussed some issues regarding reviewing before. There is also Thom Brook's paper on SSRN, "Guidelines on How to Referee." Finally, there are some online resources for best practices, including the APA's own statement. However, given that views on best practices can evolve over time, different practices may be "best" for different academic fields, and different people can have different views on what best practices are, I thought it might be a good idea to start a discussion here. What are "best practices" for journal reviewers in philosophy?
I think one good way to answer this question is to break it down into more specific questions:
- What sorts of things do reviewers you have encountered do that you consider to be good practices?
- What sorts of things do reviewers you have encountered do that you consider to be bad practices?
- Given answers to (1) and (2), what exactly should be expected from reviews?
- How should journal editors enforce those expectations?