Peer review may not be such a bad idea: Response to Heesen and Bright

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)peer-review

Abstract

In a recent paper in BJPS, Hessen and Bright argue that prepublication peer review should be abolished and replaced with postpublication peer review (provided the matter is judged purely on epistemic grounds). In this paper, I show that there are three problems with their argument. First, it fails to consider the epistemic cost of implementing the change to postpublication peer review. Second, it fails to consider some potential epistemic benefits of prepublication peer review, which involve avoiding bias. Third, it fails to consider some potential epistemic disadvantages of postpublication peer review, which stem from the greater number of papers that would be published under the system.
Original languageEnglish
JournalBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 7 Mar 2020

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Peer review may not be such a bad idea: Response to Heesen and Bright'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this