A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.
Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)
Contact: marvan@ut.edu
Blog mission & moderation policy
In our newest “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:
How do editors pick reviewers? Do they see who is cited in the paper and take it as a hint for sending the piece to them, or do they pick reviewers based on their expertise?
Any editors care to weigh in?
I know you want to hear from editors of philosophy journals, but I was an editor for PLOS One for six years. There are 5,000 editors (YES, 5,000). When I received a paper, I used a system to generate a list of potential referees. It as a large data base created by PLOS One, with information about referees’ publications, affiliations, and a link to their webpage. I could pick 15 or so referees, and they would be set into an order which determined when they were to be invited. First, two invitations would go out. If anyone declined, another invitation was sent automatically. If someone did not respond within a week, then another referee was invited automatically. And so on … The system also allowed me to see the track record of the referees. I could see how many papers they had reviewed, how fast they got their reports in, etc. Obviously, this information would affect who I would invite. The selection of referees was done on the basis of key words (so take the task of picking key words seriously).
For a large percentage of the reviews I’m invited to do, I am cited in a footnote early on.
Same here. Seems like Editors see whose work is being engaged with in the paper and then invite them to review it. This has happened me to quite often.
I’m an Associate Editor for Analysis right now. I use a variety of techniques. Sometimes if someone’s work is being directly addressed in a submission, I ask them to referee. Sometimes someone appears in the submission’s bibliography who looks (from a perusal of their website, etc.) like they have done substantial work in the field and are likely to know it well. Or I may know of someone who works on a particular topic, and turn to them (though I try not to do that too much). Analysis also has an extensive, searchable database of referees organized by topic. And there’s always PhilPapers, SEP entries, and Google Scholar. Plus if I get stuck I can turn to other editors.
Finally, it’s worth mentioning that when someone declines a referee request, they often provide names of other potential referees whom I never would have come up with, but who turn out to be great. So even if you don’t have time to referee, please give us suggestions!
Leave a Reply