Re:Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thin...
by Schiphol on Tuesday February 09, 2021 @11:14AM
(#26079218)
Not the OP, but well regarded philosophy journals (in my academic neck of the woods) have ridiculously low acceptance rates (2-3% often), and in general peer review is done and taken seriously.
Re:Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thin...
by _qulr on Tuesday February 09, 2021 @11:24AM
(#26079337)
> well regarded philosophy journals (in my academic neck of the woods) have ridiculously low acceptance rates (2-3% often)
This just shows that academic philosophy is a very exclusive club. It doesn't say anything about the standards involved.
If anything, an extremely high rejection rate tends to enforce intellectual conformity and conservatism on a field that you would think is least in need of those qualities.
Re:Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thin...
by ntsplnkv2 on Tuesday February 09, 2021 @12:35PM
(#26080282)
It stands to reason that most papers will not be impressive, so even if the filter is biased it likely has some sort of value.
It's always a balancing act. Become too restrictive and good ideas could get snuffed out, but too open and it's just a giant cluster of bad ideas and too much noise.
> These disciplines have overall lower standards in comparison to philosophy
Given your earlier statement, may I ask what you consider to be the higher standards of philosophy?
I ask somewhat rhetorically as a former philosophy PhD student who left because I felt the whole field seemed quite indifferent to anything other than careerist journal stuffing.