Rank-order the following properties of the JOURNAL peer-review process in philosophy from BEST to WORST (1=best feature of the peer-review process, 26=worst feature of the peer-review process):

Only the single favorite choice will win the poll.
The poll ends November 26th. The poll supervisor is Marcus Arvan (marvan@ut.edu). Contact the poll supervisor if you need help.

Give each of the following choices a rank, where a smaller-numbered rank means that you prefer that choice more. For example, give your top choice the rank 1. Give choices the same rank if you have no preference between them. You do not have to use all the possible ranks.

Note: All choices initially have the rank “No opinion”. This rank is not the same as the lowest possible rank; it means that you choose not to rank this choice with respect to the other choices.

 Choice Rank
Editors and reviewers are overworked
Revise-and-resubmits swamping authors & reviewers, needlessly delaying publication
Good editors who are sensitive to plight of authors and referees
The process improving one’s awareness of other works in paper’s area
Bad behavior of authors (in R&R and editorial process)
Good referee reports (sensible, helpful, charitable)
Journals (editors and reviewers) are overly conservative philosophically
Overly long turnaround times (due to delays/difficulties in finding reviewers + completion of reviews)
Too many journals only using doubly-anonymized review (permitting editing to know author’s identity)
Too many false positives (bad papers being published)
Journals are overly conservative procedurally (deeming one negative review sufficient for rejection)
Journals sharing referee feedback/verdicts with all reviewers, not just the author
Anonymized review giving authors a fair chance regardless of background or prestige
Too many half-baked papers are placed under review
Desk-rejection is underused (letting too many bad papers go out to reviewers)
Papers getting ‘lost’ while under review (i.e. never placed under review)
Journals that have established deadlines for reviews, improving turnaround times
Top journals are too biased in favor of highly abstract ‘core’ areas (metaphysics, epistemology, meta-ethics)
Too many false negatives (good papers being repeatedly rejected)
The process as a whole improving the quality of one’s work
Perfunctory reviews (e.g. several sentences that provide no argument for reviewer’s recommendation)
Bad reviewers (incompetent, biased, aggressive, etc.)
Violations of anonymized review (referees Google reviewing or otherwise knowing paper’s author)
Desk-rejection is overused (rejecting papers that should go out to reviewers)
The process is overly opaque (both to authors and reviewers)
Poor journal communication with authors (failure to explain why reviews are delayed, etc.)




These buttons are deactivated because your browser does not support Javascript.

Show QR code for this poll.

If you have already voted, you may see the current poll results.