Popular Posts

  • The Kenny G of sociology
    People with absurdly elevated opinions of themselves are common in all walks of life. In some parts of academia they compound the sin by wr...
  • Taking the rough with the smooth - plugging colleagues and flakes
    In the same issue of Sociological Research Online I also noted an interesting review article on economic sociology by an esteemed colleague...
  • Bukowski on writing
    I came across this poem by Charles Bukowski which expresses something important about integrity in writing. I wouldn't take it literally...
  • GBCS - shades of Gray
    You can now read the published version of my final salvo against the Great British Class Survey which is out today in the latest (special)...
  • Forpseud!
    Anyone care to have a go at translating this sociological gem into something resembling the English language? " There is much to unpic...
  • Peer Review
    Ben Goldacre links to this piece in the New Scientist on peer review. As he points out the process isn't and in fact can never be perf...
  • 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...
  • What have you been reading?
    Kieran Healey has produced a fascinating graphic of the number of citations of the 10 most cited sociology journal articles in each decade...
  • John Martyn
    I must be working too hard because I failed to notice that John Martyn had died at the end of January. It feels strangely personal and judgi...
  • Sociologists in fiction
    On holiday I read Eric Ambler's Send No More Roses , a psychological thriller which I can heartily recommend. Written in the 1970s, it...

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)