Last week at the 2006 PSA Meeting, there was a session with Michael Dickson, editor of Philosophy of Science. What he had to say is especially interesting in light of recent controversies on how philosophy journals are run.
Here are a few things I remember Michael Dickson saying (paraphrased by me):
1. The acceptance rate is between 5 and 10%, depending on the area of philosophy of science (though submissions are rising and page numbers are fixed, so the acceptance rate is presumably going down).
2. Although his primary mandate is to publish the best work in philosophy of science, regardless of how many papers are in any area, he attempts to maintain diversity by giving more chances to revise and resubmit to some papers in underrepresented areas. In other words, ceteris paribus, the author of a paper in an underrepresented area might be invited to resubmit several times until her paper is good enough whereas the author of a paper in a well represented area might not.
3. Refereeing is blind and authors are always given reasonably detailed referee reports.
4. A large chunk of the refereeing is done by the memebers of the editorial board.
5. When a paper arrives, the editor looks at it. If he thinks it’s irrelevant, he sends a message to the author explaining why it is irrelevant (sometimes with the help of a referee). About 20% of the papers are rejected this way. As to the relevant papers, the editor selects three potential referees, with the aim of getting two of the three to referee the paper. If the two referees disagree on whether to accept the paper, he asks for a third opinion. If only one person agrees to referee the paper and writes a convincing and clear-cut report, it’s possible that the editor will make a decision based only on that report, though if in doubt, he will ask for a second opinion.
6. The journal aims at giving a response to authors within two months. This is actually the mean response time, though the standard deviation is large. Delays are mostly caused by tardy referees.
7. I asked Dickson what he thought about the possibility that the refereeing process (e.g., the selection of referees) be biased in favor of certain authors (say, the more famous ones). He said he is very aware of this possibility, and does his best to avoid favoring anyone. He has noticed that when (blind) referees attempt to guess who the author is, they are usually wrong. He has considered choosing the referees without knowing the authors’ names, but this alternative procedure creates the risk of sending papers to people with conflicts of interest, such as the colleagues, teachers, or students of the authors. One could get around this difficulty by having two editors, one selecting the referees (without knowing the authors’ names) and one (knowing the authors’ names) vetting the list of referees. But this requires more personnel than Philosophy of Science has available.
My impression from meeting Dickson as well as my experience from my own submissions to Philosophy of Science is that although there have been some occasions of misplaced papers, which led to long and unnecessary waits, the refereeing process at Philosophy of Science is one of the most rigorous, unbiased, and helpful in the field. (I have received some of the best and most helpful referee reports from Philosophy of Science.)