A philosopher involved in journal editing writes:
I have recently run across a paper titled "Edifying Editing" [ed.-link now fixed] by a co-editor of the American Economic Review. Only some parts of the paper are relevant to philosophical journals, but those parts are interesting. Here is a modified version of an editorial policy that AER follows. I'd be interested in whether it would appeal to philosophers.
Suppose that a journal allowed authors to opt in advance for their manuscript to be reviewed on a "comments only for revision" basis. When an author opts for this treatment, the editors would instruct referees that they need not provide comments if they are recommending a flat rejection of the manuscript: comments are to be provided only by referees whose recommendation is "accept" or "revise-and-resubmit" -- that is, only if comments would be useful for ongoing consideration and/or publication of the paper.
The purpose of selecting this option would be that negative decisions would be forthcoming more quickly, so that authors could submit their papers elsewhere. Authors would not receive comments that help them to improve their work for submission to other venues, but they would be able to move on to those venues with less delay.
Again, this treatment of a manuscript would be at the author's option.
What say you?
Comments are open; signed comments strongly preferred. Submit your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.
