What Analysis is doing about what it’s like

They’re moving to a triple-anonymous review process. This decision was made because the committee became concerned about the potential for implicit bias in the review process.

Change *is* possible, and sometimes even change in the right direction! Nice to have something to counter-balance the bad news from economics. And especially nice to have the good news coming from philosophy.

4 thoughts on “What Analysis is doing about what it’s like

  1. That’s really good news! I wonder if their fear was based on any facts about the proportion of women rejected without reviews other than the editor’.

  2. I was at the committee meeting. Those data were not a part of the discussion, and were not to my knowledge ever collected. But one thing that did come up was the low rate of submissions from women, which troubled the committee. That could well have been due to a fear of biased editing and refereeing. Hopefully the new procedures will help with that as well!

  3. Kudos to the committee for recognizing the possible connection! For whatever it’s worth, the fear of biased editing and refereeing is precisely what has prevented me from submitting to Analysis (and a number of other journals). This is excellent news. I’ll definitely be submitting at least one piece in the very near future.

  4. I’d just like to add that my experience with Analysis is the same as ever: a reply with rejection and no comments in exactly one week. I don’t think there is much to be gained by a triple refereeing process when many papers do not even get to be refereed. My guess is that this article, like others, was rejected briefly after the file was opened by the editor, and rejected exclusively on the basis of his judgment. No doubt, an editor HAS to reject some things that really are not worthy of beeing sent to referees. But I do not think my paper was in that category, as many papers that don’t make it to referees in Analysis surely are.

Comments are closed.