The Social Epistemology of Philosophy Journals

Nobody with any knowledge of philosophy journals thinks that things are going well with them. What exactly is wrong, and how things might be improved is much less clear. In this event, we will take a wide-angle lens on this problem, considering what philosophy journals might learn from recent literature in the social epistemology of scientific publication. Some of the questions we will consider include: How should we organise peer review? How much prestige should we associate with different kinds of publications? How can journals meet the needs of junior scholars? How should we handle co-authorship for different kinds of research collaboration? How many papers should journals be accepting? What are the benefits and costs of different funding models for knowledge production. 

We will host two fairly informal sessions: one with researchers giving brief overviews of their work on the social epistemology of scientific publication, and another with journal editors talking about their sense of the pressing problems faced by philosophy journals.  

Schedule 

10.30-12.30 Social Epistemology roundtable: Haixin Dang (What can journals publish beyond full length articles?), Joshua Habgood-Coote (There are no single-authored philosophy papers), Remco Heesen: (Is peer review a good idea?), Robbie Williams (Rejection rates as a collective action problem)

2.00-4.00 Editors roundtable: David Liggins (What sort of referee reports does the profession need?), Alastair Wilson (How to fund OA Philosophy Journals), Elizabeth Hannon (Remember Readers?)

Online participation link https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_ZmQ5MWE5NmMtZjU2MS00NjAyLTg3MWItNDk4MjA3YzhjMGQ2%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22bdeaeda8-c81d-45ce-863e-5232a535b7cb%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%2258aad685-d47e-48ec-a400-7cf7f5c06553%22%7d

Accessibility info https://www.accessable.co.uk/venues/botany-house#66aa83eb-875c-5443-bba4-22331d78b25a (any questions email [email protected])