I’ve heard quite a few journal horror stories from professional philosophers over the past few years. Also, in a recent post, I noted that there have been quite a few discussion threads that highlight major issues concerning peer reviewed philosophy journals. I’m going to start tracking these discussion threads.

Whenever I find a new discussion (or horror story), I’ll update this post and move it to the front of the blog. If anyone finds anything out there worthy of note, let me know.

The List
1. There is an interesting discussion over at PEA Soup about when (if at all) to request a re-read. The discussion thread leads to an interesting discussion of a more general problem concerning the blind referee process.

2. Certain Doubts has a discussion thread regarding the tension between blind review and posting draft versions of papers on the internet.

3. Leiter’s blog has an old thread discussing which journals are responsible and which ones are not. The discussion thread, however, has recently picked up.

4. Clayton Littlejohn has a rejection woe story here.

5. Here’s another good discussion post at PEA Soup. It’s about ethics journals generally, but the discussion thread is mixed with some journal woe stories and advice for pre-tenure professors.

6. Jonathan Ichikawa has an interesting post here concerning the length of the journal review process.

7. Jon Cogburn has an interesting little post on the blind review process for philosophy journals here. He also gives us a promissory note to post more on this issue.

8. This is Jon Cogburn’s promissory note. This is an interesting diagnosis of three basic types of blind referees.

9. And this is a third post from Cogburn in praise of one of the three basic types of blind referees – the Good Samaritan.

Bonus Track: Conditional Material has a great satire on the referee process here.