Interest
How interesting are philosophers of science likely to find this paper?
- The BJPS operates a triple-anonymised peer review system. This means:
- If you know the identity of the author(s): Please simply decline the invitation.
-
- If you suspect you know the identity of the author(s): In the experience of the Editors, speculation about the identity of an author often goes wrong. Thus, if you have what amounts to no more than a strong suspicion concerning the author’s identity, the Editors will ask that you continue to act as a referee.
-
- If in doubt, email the editorial office (bjps@thebsps.org).
-
- Do not indicate or speculate about the author’s identity anywhere in your report.
- Your report will be one of several that the editors take into account when making their decision. This means that the decision may not align with your recommendation.
- This also means that if you have already reviewed this paper for another journal and are happy to share that report with us, you will not be the sole person standing in the way of the paper’s publication. The editors weigh up various concerns (one of which is not duplicating referee labour when there are already more papers than people with the time to referee).
- We think carefully about who to invite. Occasionally, we may get it wrong and, for example, you no longer work on this particular topic. But you can generally assume you were invited in the full knowledge that, for example, the paper criticises your work (we will read your report with the understanding that you have ‘skin in the game’; nonetheless, we are keen that you are not badly misrepresented and hence the invitation). Or perhaps you have expertise that allows you to speak to only one portion of a paper; we will have invited others to offer advice on those other parts of the argument. Feel free to flag these sorts of issues in your report, but don’t assume they are reason to decline an invitation to review.
- If you agree to review a paper but you cannot make the deadline, please let us know and we will be happy to grant an extension. From time to time, referees ‘ghost’ us — agreeing to referee a paper but then failing to return a report or respond to emails — and we must restart the review process, leading to big delays for authors. For this reason, it is important for us to know that the report is on the way, so please do keep in touch.
- If you decline an invitation, please do so promptly. Significant delays in the peer-review process arise due to successive invitations going unanswered for days or even weeks.
- And if you can’t review a paper, please do suggest alternatives. We especially welcome the names of those who might be less well known or more highly specialized.
- Please refrain from Googling or otherwise trying to determine the identity of the author. This applies even after the review has been submitted, as we may need to send the paper back to you once revisions have been made.
- If, at any point in the review process, you discover that you know the identity of the author(s) of this paper, please contact the editorial office (bjps@thebsps.org). Do not contact any of the editors directly.
- Please let the Journal know about any conflict of interest, suspicion of duplicate publication, fabrication of data, or plagiarism.
- Please do not share or cite the paper under review without permission.
When considering your recommendation, there are five key points about which we would welcome your opinion.
The online submission system asks for comments for the editors and comments for the author. You may wish to provide both or only one of these. We require slightly different things from each. Broadly:
- comments for the author should focus on suggestions you may have for improving the paper;
- comments for the editors should focus on your recommended course of action for this paper and the reasons for your assessment.
- Please do not sign your report or otherwise reveal your identity. We will redact any identifying information. (If referees were to identify themselves, we couldn’t then use them in any subsequent rounds of review.)
- If at all possible, please do not submit annotated pdfs or upload your comments as a pdf file. Special characters are available at the top of the text box, but feel free to copy and paste in LaTeX code if preferred. (It generates a lot of work for the editors to sort through and anonymise things like annotated pdf files.)
- If your recommendation is major or minor revisions, please give a clear indication of what improvements you would like to see. (And if you do recommend revisions, if at all possible, please agree to referee any resubmission.)
Section 5 is underdeveloped in the following way…
- Please discuss the paper and not the author.
Section 5 argues…
- Avoid derisive and insulting comments. Do not assume the author’s gender (though this should not be a problem if you stick to discussing the paper rather than the author).
The paper needed to engage with…
- The Editors reserve the right to edit comments to the author that do not meet these standards.
- If your report is late, consider including an apology in your comments to the author(s)!
- Here we welcome your recommendation for the best course of action for this paper (accept, reject, major/minor revisions).
- Please let us know how well the paper fares relative to the criteria outlined above.
This paper should be accepted because it makes an original and important contribution to a live debate in the following ways…
- These comments will be treated as confidential unless you explicitly state otherwise.
Your question not answered here? Let us know.