Not cool

The following comment from an anonymous journal editor over at this post at Feminist Philosophers points, I think, to a very serious problem.

Don’t worry! I do not reveal your identity when I send your paper out for refereeing. Journal editors don’t normally do that. But reviewers often feel the need to search for the identity of the author. It’s so tempting to plug the title into the Google search engine. The unconscious inside the referee goes: “Ah! A Mr. Nobody or a minority person! They are not all that smart. Let’s get that paper rejected.” I know it. You know it, too. If you don’t, go take the Harvard Implicit Association Test. It will show you that you do have those biases. “But,” you may ask, “is it really true that referees google papers before making decisions?” Yep. It’s true. I know. I know because people tell me. They are not shy about it either. They say that that’s what they do. They don’t think it will cause them to make biased decisions. They just want to know whose paper they are wasting their time on. You have a quick comeback: “There is a way to avoid the Google phenomenon. Don’t upload your paper to your website until it’s forthcoming in a journal. That takes care of the problem, right?” Not really. If you are prudent, you don’t submit your papers until your ideas have been vetted at conferences. So when people google your paper’s title, they will find it, because it was listed at those conferences. “But,” you think, “I am cleverer than the googling referee. I will just change the title of my paper before submitting. So when the referees google it, the paper won’t come up.” Not so fast. Referees have told me time and time again that if they don’t find the title on Google, they may google phrases (slightly unusual ones) or first lines or arbitrary lines. So even if you change the paper’s title, the referees may still figure out who you are.

It's hard enough to be "low on the totem pole" without referees behaving in this kind of way. Is there anything that can be done about it?

Comments

[Jamin Asay]

I've done a decent share of refereeing now, and I've never tried to look up the paper, before, during, or after the process. I have no doubt that learning about its origins could have some effect on my judgment of the paper. (For the same reason, I always grade my students' work anonymously.) And it's not hard to do. You just don't go looking up the paper on the internet. Anyone capable of earning a Ph.D. in philosophy has enough maturity and will power to do that. I would support an effort on the part of journals and editors such that every time they asked you to review something, they made explicit that you make your review on the understanding that you will disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and will not do anything to remove the anonymity from the process. Of course, making such a promise every time you agree to review something won't guarantee that you'll keep the promise. But I would hope that actively making such a promise would go some way to deter people.

[Moti Mizrahi]

This comment is taken from the following NewAPPS post: http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/12/the-journal-reviewing-process-isnt-anonymous-did-you-really-think-it-was-think-again.html

I would not be surprised if this sort of thing occurs at the level of editors as well. That is, some (most?) journals don't have double-blind review, so editors know the identity of authors. This might lead some editors to reject without review papers from "nobodys" or "minority persons."

[Marcus Arvan]

Jamin: I've done a lot of reviewing too, and I've never looked up a paper's author. Unfortunately, I don't think "anyone capable of earning a PhD in philosophy has enough maturity" to behave similarly. As in life generally, there are good people in academic philosophy as well as bad ones. So, yes, I think your suggestion is a good ones. Editors should take the head on this one. I've never had an editor requesting review tell me I am *not* to look up a paper's author, and if I don't think I can respect that norm not to accept the assignment. I think such a practice would be a good thing, even if it didn't completely solve the problem.

On a different note, thanks for posting. I just checked out your work on truthmaking and it looks super interesting!

[Jason Chen]

This is unacceptable. You would think that philosophers have some sort of higher standard when it comes to ethical behavior, but I guess not. As a person of color, I find it extra offensive that "minorities" are some how deemed as less worthy of equal treatment. I don't know if others have made the same observation, but philosophy is a disproportionally white male dominated field (at least for political philosophy.) I think the profession needs more people of color (and women too for that matter) and treating minorities worse is certainly not helping.

[Jen B]

I think this is the first time I've felt disgusted by the field of philosophy, in the sense that reading what that editor is describing makes me wonder if this is even a field worth supporting. That is awful.

Surely the editor would not let people say they had looked for the identity and pedigree of an anonymous author without pointing out how egregious this is? In the comment, it looks as if the editor listens but does not respond to those kinds of admissions. I can only hope the comment from the editor is somehow exaggerated.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Jen: Thanks for your comment. Yes, perhaps what distresses me the most is that the editor gives no hint that s-/he does anything to call out or reprimand these people. I've never had an editor so much as suggest in a review-request email that I am not to do google searches, etc. Given how common and blatant the practice of compromising blind review is, this strikes me as unconscionable on editors' parts. They, and really they alone, have the power and influence to do something (anything!) to deter people from such ghastly behavior.