The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2026-27)

recent posts

about

Why don’t all journals use triple-anonymized review?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Why don't all journals adopt triple blind review? Editors act as gatekeepers when they decide to send a manuscript out for review vs. desk reject. Not only this, my understanding is that editors are also given the authority to make the final call; even if the referees recommend, say, R&R the editor can decide to reject. At journals where triple blind review is not practiced, editors make these decisions while also knowing the identity of the author. Why is this permitted? Whether or not they want to admit it, editors manifest biases; biases which will influence these decisions from time to time. Shouldn't we, as a profession, be putting pressure on all journals to adopt triple blind review? I'd like to hear some discussion on this.

Good questions! What do readers think?

Posted in , ,

12 responses to “Why don’t all journals use triple-anonymized review?”

  1. my two cents

    Well first of all there’s no one “permitting” journal editors one way or another aside from the journal itself; if you want to start a journal, you can; it’s up to the journal how things go. In my opinion that is as it should be, and the problem is more that there should be more journals regarded highly by the profession.
    I think it is good to have a mix of triple anonymous and not journals. The bias issue goes both ways. It can help authors who suffer from others’ biases that come out even in anonymous engagement (e.g. against authors whose English is imperfect, or who are writing about things in a way that make clear that they are BIPOC, to give two examples that I have seen come up from referees in my own (anonymized!) editorial work) to have an editor who knows more about the author and can thus make better judgment calls in their favor when they are marginalized in various ways in the profession. I’ll just also say that if I started a journal I do not think I would make it triple anonymous because part of what I value in philosophy is systematicity and the way philosophers’ world views and big picture thinking is developed through individual papers, and so I think it would be helpful for me to think about when a paper was or was not contributing to that, which is impossible to judge if you have no idea who wrote the paper.
    But overall I just think: isn’t it more important that we have lots of different journals, many of which are triple anonymous (I do think it is important that we have many of these), but many of which are not, so authors can make judgment calls for themselves about whether it is the kind of paper that would benefit from an editor knowing who they are, or be harmed by that, and target the right journal/editor for their paper?

    Reply
  2. you’ll me it is sour grapes as you drink the wine

    ‘so authors can make judgment calls for themselves about whether it is the kind of paper that would benefit from an editor knowing who they are’.
    Translation: ‘I think it is really going to work in favor of my arguments if the editor knows I bear identity marker x, y, z’.
    Is that something we really believe should be on the table? Is that philosophy? I could give several examples of journals whose yearly output reeks of, ‘grad advisor was friends with the editor’; ‘another top 10 Leiter normative ethicist’; etc.

    Reply
  3. Inquiring Post-Doc

    What examples are there of highly-regarded journals that use triple-blinded reviewing?

    Reply
  4. The non-ideal can still be pretty ideal

    Here’s a short, hopefully strong argument against triple-blind refereeing:
    1. As compared to ‘lesser’ editorial structures, triple-blind refereeing takes more work (in terms of hours), requires more people, and involves more coordination burden.
    2. Work hours, people availability, and coordination are all in desperate short supply, and the burdens often fall on the same volunteers over and over.
    3. Accordingly, the move from lesser structures to triple-blind often is not worth the cost.
    C. Voila.
    You might think that 1 is false, but especially if you haven’t been in the trenches for some time, I’d gather some more data before insisting otherwise.
    Gold standards are wonderful. However, not all of us grew up wealthy, and so many of us are used to doing pretty good work with the often-meager assets available.

    Reply
  5. Chris

    Inquiring post-doc:
    I could be wrong, but seem to recall that Phil Review, BJPS, Mind, Nous, PPR, Phil Imprint, J PHIL and Ergo all say they use triple-anonymous refereeing.

    Reply
  6. Benefits of Triple Blind?

    @pretty ideal
    I don’t see how 3 follows from 1 and 2. I think you need some premise about the benefits of moving to triple-blind. In particular, if the benefits of moving to triple-blind were incredible, then 3) would be clearly false.
    On the other hand, if you don’t think triple blind is significantly better than non-triple blind, then of course it wouldn’t be worth the extra work. But I don’t see, in your wrong argument, any support for that claim.

    Reply
  7. Daniel Weltman

    Ethics is also triple anonymous.

    Reply
  8. I think

    Inquiring post-doc – I believe Free and Equal and Ethics also use triple blind review

    Reply
  9. Editor = reviewer

    One advantage of triple-anonymous review, which may counter “non-ideals” point, is that the editor can also serve as a reviewer while preserving double-blind review. This saves manpower and time because they only need to seek out one anonymous reviewer.

    Reply
  10. Balance of Reasons

    I think ‘sour grapes’ is right on the money, and ‘non-ideals’ fails to consider the benefits of triple-blind review. If triple blind review helps to remedy a significant problem in our field, then it is worth significant costs. This doesn’t mean that triple-blind doesn’t have it’s own issues, and that’s not what is necessary for it to be the preferable, and perhaps most just, type of journal. Instead, all that is necessary is that, given the shortcomings of philosophy (and senior philosophers) triple-blind journals are on balance better at treating submissions fairly.

    Reply
  11. Douglas W. Portmore

    ETHICS is triple-blind. One problem with being triple-blind, though, is that most managerial systems are not set up for triple-blind review since it’s unheard of in the sciences, and the systems were designed mainly with science journals in mind. For instance, ETHICS is published by the University of Chicago Press, and there’s no way on their managerial system to prevent the person who logs in as Editor in Chief from having access (or even seeing) the authors’ names. The way we get around this at ETHICS is by having our managerial editor essentially take on the role of Editor in Chief in the system. We also have to insist on all communications being directed to the managerial editor in the first instance. All this means more work for the managerial editor. So, as Editor in Chief, I log in as Editor as Reviewer after the managerial editor assigns a submission to me. It also means that I have to use email and direct the managerial editor to do certain things that, if I were signed in as Editor in Chief, I would be able to do myself. Another thing that counts against triple-blind review (and I only recently heard this argument) is that the Editor in Chief cannot give the benefit of the doubt to younger scholars when doing their initial vetting, because they don’t know whether the scholar is junior. There are certain “mistakes” by an author that would raise all kinds of red flags if made by a senior scholar, but might be just chalked up to inexperience if made by a junior scholar. So, sometimes the identity of the author can be helpful for an editor in determining when to give the author of a submission the benefit of the doubt.

    Reply
  12. OP

    The response from “my two cents” is indicative of the kind of thing that concerns me about non-anonymized editorial work. Should the job of an editor really involve making judgment calls about who is marginalized in the profession and who isn’t? Editors are not reliable judges when it comes to that, and the identity of the author shouldn’t be a relevant consideration in any case. In the absence of any realistic way of pressuring journals into adopting triple-blind, I will simply be making an effort to avoid journals that don’t use it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading