...in a heretofore obscure journal called Metaphilosophy. The article was incompetent, as I first noticed and as David Wallace (Oxford) confirmed in detail. There was also, of course, the little matter of the article's defamation of those who produced the PGR--me and Brit, as well as the Advisory Board--as really being racists and sexists.
I have now had a correspondence with the editor of this allegedly "scholarly" journal--Prof. Marsoobian--and, to his credit, he did commission additional referee reports on Prof. Bruya's article in the wake of the criticisms. Prof. Marsoobian declined to disclose either the new referees (recall that he also chose the initial referees, so one does wonder) or even an anonymized version of their reports--I can not blame him for the former, but think the latter revealing: why not let skeptics see the assessment by alleged professionals? Despite this secrecy, the best the new referees could say about Prof. Bruya's article was, according to Prof. Marsoobian, this: "the methodology in the article is not so seriously flawed that it would warrant retraction." It is good to know that the referees concur with Prof. Wallace that Bruya's article is "seriously flawed," as it obviously is. But according to Prof. Marsoobian, the referees did not defend the article or its methodology or its analysis; all they could say was that it was "not so seriously flawed that it would warrant retraction." What are the standards for retraction for incompetent work? Prof. Marsoobian did not say.
Metaphilosophy will publish Prof. Wallace's critique. As to the defamation, that issue may not, it appears, be resolved in the journal, though the matter is still under discussion with Prof. Masroobian and Wiley-Blackwell and counsel.