28 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2016
    1. Does peer review work? Is peer review broken? The vast majority of authors believe it improves their final work, and since it’s evolving from this solid base, it’s clearly not broken. But before we can have a useful discussion about its purpose and effectiveness, we need to agree on which approach to peer review we’re talking about, then whether our expectations of it are reasonable and accurate.
    2. So-called “post-publication peer review” is an interesting animal in its own right. As I’ve written about before, there are many problems with equating commenting with peer-review, including a lack of pre-qualification and no central evaluative authority or accountability. And it’s nothing new, in a sense. The most basic form of post-publication peer-review is called “reading.” A more involved version is called “a discussion” or “a journal club.” The more elaborate version yet is called “science.” Those who want to capture it in computer code are making essential trade-offs, many of which we don’t understand completely yet. One of these is the cost of entry into public post-publication peer-review systems — the effort it entails, the risk for publicly being shamed for saying something ill-advised or clearly wrong, and the lack of actual give-and-take. Again, post-publication peer-review is not one thing, and just because you capture some aspect of it in commenting software doesn’t mean you’ve done anything much.

      These are some very good points to keep in mind as we distinguish the methods of the PPJ from other things that could also be called 'post-publication peer review'.

    3. Here are some variables around peer-review we have to understand before we know what kind of peer review we’re actually talking about: Is it blinded? If it is blinded, is it single-blinded or double-blinded? Is there statistical or methodological review in addition to external peer-review? Are the peer reviewers truly experts in the field or a more general assemblage of individuals? What are the promises and goals of the peer review process? What type of disclosure of financial or other potential competing interests is made? Are reviewers aware of these? Is there a senior editor of some sort involved along with outside peer reviewers? Is the peer-review “inherited” from another body, such as a committee or a preceding journal process (e.g., in “cascading” title situations or when expert panels have been involved)? Are there two tiers of peer review within the same journal’s practices? Is the peer-review done at the article level or at the corpus level (as happens with some supplements)? Is plagiarism-detection software used as part of the process? Are figures checked for manipulation? Is the peer reviewer graded by a senior editor as part of an internal evaluation and improvement process?
  2. Jan 2015
    1. prevented you from

      Add: , or helped you in, ...

    2. Can you think of a time when you were pretty sure about what the right thing to do was, but you didn’t do it?

      Add: Can you think of a time you did?

  3. Oct 2014
    1. At present, we use the PressForward plugin to nominate content for our Curated Content page. This page will walk you through the process of logging in to your Public Philosophy Journal account and explain how to install and use PressForward’s Nominate This button.

      Once you have access, you can then install and use PressForward's Nominate This button.

      The instructions provided here will walk you through each stage of the Curator-at-Large process:

    2. you will be sent

      we will send you

    3. Curators-at-Large are community members who are given access to the Public Philosophy Journal’s PressForward interface in order to nominate relevant content for our Curated Content page. Although we make our source list (i.e. our blog-roll catalog) available to all community members, we encourage Curators-at-Large to curate content from the websites they frequently visit (and to suggest relevant blogs to us by tweeting to us at @PubPhilJ using our URL submission form).

      How about:

      Curators-at-Large are people like you who are engaged in reading about issues of public concern, reflecting critically on these issues, and calling other people's attention to discussions that are particularly thoughtful and though-provoking. Doing the last part is as easy as installing a browser plugin and then clicking a button whenever you come across something on the web that you would like to share with other members of the public philosophy community.

  4. Sep 2014
    1. After all, don’t we tend to examine our motivations for doing something only when we have reason to doubt that we are doing the right thing?





    2. It also doesn’t lessen the value and the potential power of the example one sets for others.


      'need to'


      'doesn't' and 'lessen'


      What are we doing about discussion?

    1. A final exercise will challenge you to bring the skills you hone through this process to bear on a complex scenario involving several ethical issues.

      change to reflect change in module

  5. Jun 2014
    1. This later formulation points to the beginning of an important transformation of the public sphere as it moved from being a space of public authority to one in which private citizens came together to form publics capable of holding public authorities accountable.

      This is a key point, so I want to make sure I understand it correctly. Is the claim that a 'public world of readers' is already a transition away from an earlier conception of the public sphere as simply the site of dissemination for authoritarian mandates?

      How does the private/public distinction function when it comes to private citizens forming publics that hold public authorities accountable?

      Maybe the phrase 'private citizen' is throwing me off here.

    1. A fundamental task for public philosophy is to attend to the work the public is doing in developing its own self-conception.

      This strikes me as a very productive way of identifying an important aspect of public philosophy. On the one hand, it allows us to distinguish between philosophers who think more people should be listening to them and philosophers who think they should be listening to more people. On the other hand, it suggests and leaves open a number of questions that can be addressed in and through the work public philosophers are doing in developing their own self-conceptions.