Popular Posts

  • The Great British Class Fiasco
    It's been a bad week for my blood pressure. I'm trying manfully to ignore the hooplah arising from MT shuffling off her mortal coil...
  • Prolier than thou
    Fair dinkum cobber, the land of the cultural cringe has come up with its own version of the Great British Class Survey and like the origina...
  • Version of Record
    Don't get me wrong, I'm a great fan of "online first" academic publishing and I look forward to the day when the outmoded...
  • Causality fascism
    While in Turku I heard a term that was new to me "causality fascism". Actually, in the usage, there is an important distinction t...
  • Clarence Rook's Hooligan Nights
    Clarence Henry Rook's Hooligan Nights (1899) purports to be a piece of late Victorian London underworld reportage. It is not clear tha...
  • What's in a question mark?
    Question marks are tricky things to get right, especially in the titles of books and articles. Sidney and Beatrice Webb's reputation ne...
  • Oxford BusTravel and Social Dysfunctionality
    Sometimes one is just left speechless.  My daughter starts secondary school later this week. She's been going to a primary about 3 ...
  • Is paying more for your child's education bad for their grades?
    This is a very interesting blog piece by Andrew Gelman on a recently published American Sociological Review article. The discussion is rat...
  • Legitimate concerns
    On the first Wednesday after the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November 1980 I was sitting in Bob McKenzie's Political Sociol...
  • QCA gets pounded...ouch!
    I've not been paying too much attention to the journal literature over the Summer but I just checked out the 2014 (August) issue of Soc...

Caveat Emptor

The opinions expressed on this page are mine alone. Any similarities to the views of my employer are completely coincidental.

Tuesday 5 March 2013

Ethical Refereeing

I pose the following as purely hypothetical questions, though they are inspired by the experience of a colleague. Is it ethical for an academic journal editor to send an academic paper principally concerned with matters of fact about a social policy issue to a non-academic referee who works for an advocacy organization that is  interested primarily in facts that support their own views on the matter? Would we expect an advocate to lay aside their advocacy and in the interests of science assess an academic paper purely on its intrinsic merits? My first thoughts are that such an  editor would indeed be acting unethically and that the advocate would not be doing what  they are paid to do if he/she did not do everything in their power to discredit information that  might cause  their organization harm. The world of advocacy and the worlds of academia, though blurred at the edges are (or should be) really rather distinct. It makes me a bit queasy when academics don't see the difference. What do you think?
Posted by Colin at 08:15

2 comments:

Primula Monkey said...

Meh essentially. If the article is "concerned with matters of fact" and no much else, then it's a list as opposed to an academic article and as such of limited value.

If it's about how to intrepret "things", then it being subjected to challenge, however contrived, is all good especially given the use of "strawmen" is the basis of however many academic articles.

The risk/bad-thing is presumably if the editor(s) caved in to weak arguments/critiques regardless of who made them.

8 March 2013 at 15:38
Primula Monkey said...

Dear gawd, I thought I'd written my comment already.

Meh! There. If its simply about "facts" then its a list and as such not an academic article.

If its about how to interpret "facts" or which "facts" to consider important, then having them subject to challenge is all good given the importance of "strawmen" for yer average academic article.

The only bad thing is whether the editors are influenced by who is saying what iz all.

8 March 2013 at 15:42

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)