I had never heard of this journal previously, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to submit to it (unless the article is utterly anodyne) in light of its recent misconduct. Briefly: Dr. Perry Hendricks, a recent PhD in philosophy from Purdue University, submitted a paper to a special issue on the end of Roe v. Wade; the article was revised in response to two referee reports, then conditionally accepted pending minor changes (which were made), and then officially accepted for publication (I have seen the acceptance email, it is unambiguous).
That's when the trouble started, as recounted here; a Twitter mob, incensed by the title of the article ("Abortion Restrictions are Good for Black Women") after it was uploaded to PhilPapers, went on a rampage, leading the journal to put the publication on "hold," solicit two new referee reports (one mixed, one negative), and then rescind the acceptance. Dr. Hendricks received an email from Matthew James, the editor of the journal, who teaches at St. Mary's University in London (he does not hold a PhD in philosophy or in any subject, but he does have MA degrees). Mr. James claimed that due to a technical failure, he had not seen the article prior to the original acceptance; he explained that in his view the article did not meet the journal's standards (contrary to the earlier referee reports which led to acceptance) and also offered the following observations:
Legitimate academic debate should not be reserved for scholars of a particular race or gender, or ought to be off-limits for certain scholars. Nevertheless, in cases such as this one where white authors write about racial inequalities, or when male authors write about women's rights, this needs to be done with a considerable degree of circumspection, humility, and sensitivity. This manuscript falls short in that regard....
Taylor & Francis would be within rights to remove Mr. James as editor, since this email obviously violates the publisher's first principle of publishing ethics ("Journal editors should give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for publication. They should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s)"). Putting that aside, the editor's missive represents the extraordinary intrusion of "standpoint epistemology" blather into the editorial process. The only requirement for publication in a scholarly journal is that the publication meets the appropriate disciplinary standards for scholarship. Introducing new moral and etiquette criteria--"circumspection, humility, and sensitivity" based on race and gender--is tantamount to an admission that this particular journal has no disciplinary standards for scholarship.
On social media (and at the link, above) there is much opining, mostly unfavorable but some favorable, on the supposed quality of Dr. Hendricks's article. Please bear in mind that all of that is wholly irrelevant to the serious breach of professionalism by The New Bioethics: they refused to publish an accepted article in response to a Twitter uproar. This is tantamount to saying, "The New Bioethics is not a serious journal." What an embarrassment.
Recent Comments