A philosopher writes:
I'm a young philosopher just starting to publish and referee papers.
It's becoming clear that different journals select referees in very different ways. Some seem to go out of their way to select referees who are knowledgeable about the specific topic of the paper. Others seem to pick referees from among the authors cited in the paper.
Others seem to simply pick referees who work in the same area of philosophy as the one to which the paper belongs.
It'd be nice to know how common each of these procedures is, and perhaps which journals employ which procedures. The way I'd frame a paper for submission would really depend on whether I thought it'd be read by others working on the topic, or merely others working in the same general area of philosophy. Anyway, if any editors, referees, or paper-submitters out there would be willing to weigh in on this, I'd find that very helpful. Thanks!
Any comments from current or former journal editors on this subject?
