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

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

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a recent article in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Heesen 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 article, 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 that system.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)927-940
Number of pages14
JournalBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science
Volume73
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The British Society for the Philosophy of Science. All rights reserved.

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