Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Synthese: What to do now?

Brian Leiter

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MAY 15–MORE INPUT FROM SIGNATORIES OF THE PETITION WELCOME

The recent response from the EICs of Synthese, together with other information in the press, confirms several of the allegations to date:  that Synthese was lobbied by Beckwith, as well as friends of Beckwith and Intelligent Design; that Synthese received legal threats, some deemed unserious, some deemed "meaningful" (though some came from philosophers who were not "Christian," though the relevance of that is not wholly clear at this point); that the disclaimer was inserted "behind the backs" of the Guest Editors; and that there were only two articles to which objections were lodged.  The EICs have offered neither to apologize nor to retract the disclaimer.

None of the new information does anything to justify what the EICs did or to mitigate the damage they have done to the contributors to the volume or to the integrity of science education in the United States.  The points made some time ago by Hilary Kornblith (U Mass/Amherst) still stand, and bear repeating:

If I submit an article to a journal for publication, there are all sorts of reasons why they might decide either to reject it or to ask for revisions. Let’s focus on the issue of tone, since that is what’s at issue at Synthese. Suppose I submit an article which an editor wishes to publish, but the tone is somehow found wanting. There’s a wide range of reasonable views, I believe, about what tone is appropriate, and it’s a good thing that different journal editors have different views about this. And if, for some reason, the tone of a submitted piece doesn’t meet the standards a journal editor finds appropriate, then he or she might ask that the paper be revised in accordance with his or her concerns. Once that is done—assuming the author is willing to make revisions—the editor must decide whether to publish the paper. And if the journal editor’s standards fit into that wide range of reasonable views, then whatever decision the editor makes would be fine. What would not be fine, I believe, is to publish the paper and then include an editorial remark commenting that the tone is inappropriate. Authors have a reasonable expectation that their work, if accepted for publication, will not be accompanied by an editorial statement indicating deficiencies of any sort. Editors who believe that there are deficiencies which make publication inappropriate should fail to publish the paper. But if they decide that the paper meets their standards for publication, any remaining doubts they may have should be kept to themselves. Publishing editorial criticism of a paper which has been accepted falls very far outside the bounds of acceptable editorial conduct.

It does not help if the editorial remarks are of a more general sort, indicating only that there are problems somewhere in a particular issue of the journal, without naming names….  [B]y making very general remarks about problems with the issue, the editors do thereby call into question the appropriateness of the various contributions. If the editors thought that some of the contributors were guilt-free, why would they want to do this? And wouldn’t each of the contributors rightly feel aggrieved? This is not what authors sign up for when they contribute to a journal. Accept a paper or reject it. Bring whatever standards to bear that you think appropriate as an editor. But don’t accept a paper and then call its credentials, of whatever sort, into question. I have no trouble understanding why someone would think that when editors behave in this sort of way, their journal should be subject to very severe consequences….

It seems, at this point, that there are now two options, given the intransigence of the Synthese editors with respect to the core issues of misconduct.   One option remains a boycott of the journal, by both contributors and referees.  The second, which several philosophers have now raised (and one of whom, a distinguished senior figure in the fields in which Synthese publishes, has raised directly with the publisher), is to demand the resignation of the editors responsible for this mess.  Right now, it would be fair to say, the stink of this affair hovers over what everyone agrees has been a very good and important journal in the field.  Some philosophers feel that only a complete turnover in editorial management will suffice.

I invite signatories to the petition to weigh in with their thoughts on what should be done now.  There have been extensive debates about the pros and cons at many blogs, to which I've linked previously.   At this point, I would really like to gauge what signatories to the petition (or those supportive of the petition, but who did not learn of it until after it closed) think is the right course of action in light of where things stand now.   Of course, if some signatories to the petition feel the new information resolves the issue, then they should also feel free to say so and explain why (my impression–admittedly anecdotal–is that most signatories are not at all satisfied, but if that's wrong, I want to know!).  Thanks.

Leave a Reply to Thom Brooks Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17 responses to “Synthese: What to do now?”

  1. kelly james clark

    I don't know Brian Leiter. We've never spoken. But, somehow he thinks it's OK to say things about me that aren't true. First and foremost, I'm not a defender of ID. I have written two books (forthcoming) and articles in which I defend evolution and reject ID. Second, at the time of defending Francis Beckwith, I was not his friend (or his enemy). We have since had a few brief conversations in passing.

    BL COMMENT: I did not say Professor Clark was a supporter of Intelligent Design. I did think he was a friend of Beckwith's, but perhaps I am mistaken. If so, I retract the allegation, with apologies.

    Reply
  2. Alastair Wilson

    Brian – on what basis do you infer that the 'meaningful' legal threats came from philosophers who were not Christians, rather than from Christians who are not philosophers, or (less plausibly, perhaps) from people who are neither Christians nor philosophers?

    In my view, the most significant new piece of evidence provided by the response is that the EICs consider themselves constrained in the answers that they can publically give. In the light of this, we should be very careful about concluding that they do not care about the damage caused by their actions, or that they are wilfully ignoring the feelings of the philosophical community, or that they are motivated by ego, etc. In any case, the role of the publisher in all this certainly deserves closer scrutiny.

    For now, the best course of action seems to be to continue to press for fuller disclosure of the facts of the case. I don't think that the case for a boycott, or for a call for resignation, is yet compelling.

    BL REPLIES: (1) It is possible that the 'meaningful' legal threats came from non-philosopher Christians. (2) As I noted it in the companion post, I do not think the philosophical community should be willing to accept editorial misconduct through legal intimidation, if that is what has happened. And the disclaimer, itself–the core bit of misconduct–was not the product of a legal threat, and the EICs do not claim it was. (3) I want to be clear that no one, to my knowledge, has suggested 'ego' has played a role in any of this–that's certainly not my view.

    Reply
  3. Justin Fisher

    The thing that strikes me as most irresponsible about the editors' actions was their not specifying which papers they took to be problematic, and thereby calling into question all the papers in the issue. Since the editors repeatedly refrain from identifying which papers they want to call into question, one naturally suspects that they actually *intend* to call all the other papers into question, as well as the general judgement of the guest editors. This strikes me as petty, and extremely unfair to authors who contributed unproblematic papers to the journal in good faith.

    So I think we should make at least two non-negotiable demands: (1) that the editors specify which papers (or better yet, which particular passages) they find objectionable, and (2) that they apologize to the other authors for having called their good-faith submissions into question.

    I'm less clear regarding the question of what further wrongs might need to be righted. I can imagine myself in the shoes of a general editor who delegated decision-making to special-issue editors who, I discover much too late, employ much less stringent standards than I would have prefered. In an egregious case, I might then feel obligated to correct this as best I could, which might involve first asking the authors to correct the offending passages, and failing that, publishing an apology for having let something so inappropriate slip through the cracks. So, I can at least imagine a case in which a disclaimer (specifying offending papers and passages) could be appropriate.

    However, many will question whether this actually was such an egregious case. Given the acknowledged presence of legal threats, observers can hardly be faulted for suspecting that the editors were not simply making a good-faith effort to correct what they viewed as an oversight, but instead were caving in to pressure (a sort of pressure painfully familiar to those of us who follow the ID debate in America).

    I think the best way for the editors to address these worries is, again, to identify the offending passages, and (3) to explain clearly why these passages do not meet their usual standards.

    Once they have done so, we'll be in a position to judge how well the editors are doing at applying reasonable standards. If many of us agree that they applied unreasonable standards in this case, then pressing for resignation and/or boycotting the journal would seem appropriate to me.

    Alternatively, we might decide that we've already read all the papers closely enough to know that there couldn't possibly be passages in them offensive enough to merit such a disclaimer. I'm not well enough informed to go quite that far yet myself. Are you?

    Reply
  4. Ingo Brigandt

    I have posted my detailed comment on the editors' recent statement elsewhere (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/on-the-synthese-editor-in-chiefs-response-to-our-petition.html ), which I will not repeat here. But I note that a particularly unsavoury aspect is that Francis Beckwith received the statement from the EICs (he was the first person to blog about it), while a special issue author and a guest editor have gone on record claiming that they were not emailed the statement by the EICs.

    My original aims were a retraction of the disclaimer and an editorial repudiation of some parts of Beckwith's response to Forrest. The petition has not achieved this (and the recent statement by the EICs does not suggest that these aims should be abandoned), so that now an organized boycott has to follow, i.e., the refusal to submit to and referee for Synthese until specified demands are met. Moreover, not only have the editors in chief failed to apologize to the special issue authors, they have consistently and most recently by their statement refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing on their part. Given that the EICs do not answer to considerations of ethical professional conduct, a call for their resignation has to follow as well. We know by now that a petition does not help, so that this demand would have to be backed up by a boycott as well.

    Kudos to Massimo Pigliucci and Raphael Scholl for withdrawing their submission to Synthese, two weeks ago when most of us were merely talking about the issue (http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/04/paper-withdrawn-from-synthese ).

    Reply
  5. James H. Fetzer

    What has bothered me the most about the article in The New York Times, apart from failure to mention the petition, is that van Bentham abused this occasion to claim that "another article in the issue concerned them". Neither Glenn nor I received any indication at any point of concern over any paper other than Forrest's and no effort was made to contact any other author or to request revisions of any other author. I regard this as historical revisionism in an attempt to enhance their public image.

    The "other paper" presumably was Pennock's, which has even been criticized by Larry Laudan, who does not acknowledge the use/mention distinction. Pennock's piece, which I liked enough to make our lead article, quotes passages highly critical of Laudan in order to discuss them, but which Laudan attributes to Pennock himself. The best discussion of this may be found in the "Open Discussion" thread of John Wilkins' "Evolving Thoughts", which includes debate over philosophical issues.

    I have also made this point in http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/on-the-synthese-editor-in-chiefs-response-to-our-petition.html but I am reiterating it here because I regard it as another indication of the irresponsible and unprofessional attitude that they have adopted throughout. I never thought it would come to this, but I am now disposed to believe that only by replacing the three current Editors-in-Chief can confidence in SYNTHESE be restored. I can see no serious alternative.

    Reply
  6. Mohan Matthen

    Let's not forget that the publishers had some influence on how things have turned out in this mess. I hope that when philosophers rank journals, they will keep in mind who publishes them. Springer has lost some credibility in this controversy.

    This is not to exculpate the EiCs, who should have reasoned things out from first principles, and who should not have allowed Beckwith to take advantage of their [rather silly] statement. In particular, they should not have printed Beckwith's attribution to them of strong and specific criticisms of Forrest that they did not explicitly make. By their actions they ended up implicitly making those statements. When somebody stands by another who attributes a statement to them, and endorses this person's utterance, then they have made the statement attributed to them. The EiCs and Synthese have massively lost credibility here.

    I hope that for all of us, the main reason to publish is academic. Nevertheless, there is some tangible benefit in publishing in forums that have a good reputation. The EiCs, Synthese, and Springer have a reduced reputation because of their actions here. Thus, regardless of any boycott, some degree of retribution has already occurred. There is a good deal less benefit to be gained from publishing in Synthese than there was before.

    Reply
  7. George M. Felis

    I do not quite see the point of posing a boycott and a demand for resignation as alternatives. I, for one, fully intend to boycott Synthese until there are new editors-in-chief, period. A very significant proportion of the community of scholars whom Synthese serves has asked for a gross error in professional judgment to be acknowledged, apologized for, and corrected. To date, the editors-in-chief have not even taken the first step and acknowledged that they have acted improperly. Their intransigence indicates that their choices in this matter were not merely errors in judgment, but defects in the standards by which they make such judgments: Those defective professional standards render them unfit to execute their duties.

    Reply
  8. Christy Mag Uidhir

    Consider previous discussions held here about the questionable practices of journals (e.g., lack of blind review, substandard quality of refereeing, extraordinarily long response times). In each of these discussions, once can find a substantial number of people either indicating their own willingness to refrain from submitting to/refereeing for certain journals found most egregious or outright calling for a boycott of said journals until their editorial practices improve. Given this, it strikes me as odd that when a situation arises involving what seems to be truly deplorable and flagrant (if not also craven) editorial misconduct, calls for boycott seem comparatively absent or subdued. If the actions of the E-in-C of Synthese do not warrant a boycott, then what would? I can't help but have a sneaking suspicion that Synthese will emerge from this relatively unscathed. Of course, I hope that I am proven wrong and that at the end of the day, actual and outrageous editorial misconduct better galvanizes a boycott than eighteen-month average response times.

    BL COMMENT: I share Professor Mag Uidhir's sentiments, though as Mohan Matthen noted, it's pretty clear that Synthese is already 'scathed,' as it were.

    Reply
  9. David Miller

    Can I respectfully ask why we haven't heard anything from the *other* editors of Synthese?
    The editors-in-chief are not solely responsible for the content and editorial practices of the journal, as they themselves indicate at the end of their response. There is, in fact, an extensive list of other (well respected!) scholars in editorial roles. Can't we call on them for a statement? They seem to have standing to comment on the editorial standards of Synthese. At the very least, we should know whether they stand by the action of the EiCs. If they do not, they should mitigate the damage done. After all, isn't this precisely the sort of situation in which the action of an advisory board is most called for?

    FYI, in addition to 12 area editors, the advisory board is: Peter Gärdenfors (Lund), Clark Glymour (CMU), Jaakko Hintikka (BU), and Robert Stalnaker (MIT).
    See http://www.springer.com/philosophy/epistemology+and+philosophy+of+science/journal/11229?detailsPage=editorialBoard

    BL COMMENT: Please note that Professor Stalnaker did sign the petition.

    Reply
  10. James H. Fetzer

    George has it exactly right and I fully endorse his position: "I fully intend to boycott Synthese until there are new editors-in-chief, period. A very significant proportion of the community of scholars whom Synthese serves has asked for a gross error in professional judgment to be acknowledged, apologized for, and corrected. To date, the editors-in-chief have not even taken the first step and acknowledged that they have acted improperly. Their intransigence indicates that their choices in this matter were not merely errors in judgment, but defects in the standards by which they make such judgments: Those defective professional standards render them unfit to execute their duties."

    Posted by: George M. Felis | May 16, 2011 at 12:39 PM

    Reply
  11. A Recent PhD in Phil of Science

    Up until now, the damage produced by EICs actions in the context of the Synthese fiasco has been characterized as follows: the EICs actions have harmed (A) the contributors and guest editors of the special issue in question (on account of the professional discredit generated by the unfortunate disclaimer), (B) the cause of science education in Louisiana and perhaps the US in general (owing to the potential harm to the credibility of Prof Forrest that the disclaimer might have caused and the twisted way in which her enemies in the ID debate will use it, as evidenced by what Prof. Beckwith has already done) and (C) the whole community of researchers working in the fields where Synthese is a preeminent vehicle for world-class publications, namely philosophy of science, epistemology and logic (because of the impact that this fiasco will have on the prestige and credibility of Synthese).

    There is an aspect of (C) that I haven’t seen discussed and that bears reflection. This aspect is the impact that the actions of the EICs will have on the most vulnerable segment of the community of researchers, namely those of us looking for a job with research interests in the fields in which Synthese publishes articles. Reflection on this point, I think, makes the case for the swift resignation of the EICs even stronger. The perceptions of the philosophical community concerning the prestige of the journals where one has articles either published or forthcoming play a key role (probably second to none) when it comes to considering job applications. There are not that many journals in philosophy of science, epistemology or logic that could compare to Synthese in this respect. I think that Synthese would easily make the top five in those fields. But, most importantly, — and leaving classifications and comparative tables to one aside — there are simply few journals in which having an article published would be perceived as uncontroversially and significantly furthering one’s own professional prospects as it would in the case of Synthese. Now, as far as I’m concerned, there’s a very strong case for thinking that this no longer obtains: we know that many key figures in the relevant fields are on record as expressing deep dissatisfaction with the EICs handling of the fiasco, and that there are philosophers calling for or publicly embracing a boycott. What’s more, it is very plausible that many more will silently adopt boycott measures with regard to submission of articles to and refereeing for Synthese. It thus seems likely that post-2011 articles in Synthese will not have the same career impact as pre-2011. And while the loss of prestige of Synthese is damaging for the whole philosophical community, it is particularly perverse for those of us for whom time is dramatically of the essence; we now see the possibility of having an article published in a clearly career-advancing journal reduced by 1/6, 1/5 or 1/4 (take your pick). (I hope that people won’t start challenging the soundness of these fractions by pondering whether or not I have left out general philosophy journals and the like. This isn’t the point. With the current acceptance rates in top journals, to have the prestige of one top specialist journal eroded in such a way is very damaging, that’s the only point I’m concerned to make here.)

    The only way for this damaging effect of the EICs misconduct to be alleviated would be for the EICs to immediately resign and for the journal to make a clean break with their actions. There is a point where professional misconduct and irresponsibility, or plain ineptitude, become unambiguously morally reprehensible (even when unintentional). I think that the EICs have already reached this point. They must go.

    Reply
  12. Frank Veltman, Martin Stokhof

    (BL PREFACE: Although this thread asked for comments from signatories to the petition, Professors Veltman and Stokhof, Amsterdam colleagues of Johan van Benthem, one of the Synthese EICs, submitted the comment below. I have decided to post it, since I think it is instructive about how this matter looks to certain formal philosophers in Europe who are close to Synthese, and perhaps to the EICs themselves. (On the general topic, see http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/04/synthese-a-superficial-but-hopefully-enlightening-sociological-tour-of-european-analytic-philosophy.html.) My reply follows the comment from Professors Veltman and Stokhof.)

    We strongly feel that it is high time to stop this witch hunt.  Imagine that the special Synthese issue hadn't been about intelligent design, but about something else, say the problem of induction, or the law of non contradiction: would anyone have been as upset as some people obviously are? We don't think so. What is at stake here really is a mixture of two independent issues:  a situation in which the editors of an academic journal discover too late that a paper in a special issue contains  ad hominem argumentation, and try to make amends in a way that perhaps isn't the most elegant one, and that others abuse; and the strong feelings of opponents and proponents alike about a topic that happens to be highly controversial and of political importance in a particular part of the world.  

    We take it that it is obvious that whatever the topic of a paper, and whatever the case its author is trying to make, no editor of an academic journal can allow ad hominem arguments.  One may disagree that this particular paper contains ad hominem arguments (although we think that requires a quite charitable interpretation); one may think that the editors should have stayed mum rather than try to correct their mistake (which would have been the easy way out; we feel the editors did the honorable thing); or one may feel that the actions taken by the editors were downright stupid (actually, the two of us have different opinions on this one).  But none of this in any way justifies people taking the moral high ground and making demands that are totally out of proportion.

    The explanation for that seems to lie solely in the fact that the topic of the special issue is such a hot political issue.  But that observation explains, it does not justify. However strongly one feels about a political issue that one happens to be confronted with, to require everyone else to feel the same is rather parochial and to abandon standards of rational intellectual discourse is counterproductive.

    BL REPLY: (1) Witches did not exist, but editorial misconduct does exist in this case, and it should be of concern to all members of the philosophical community. (2) Professors Veltman and Stokhof are correct that there are two issues here related to the professional misconduct of the Synthese EICs, though they are not severable in the manner they imagine. First, there is the misconduct involved in permitting articles to be published in the journal you edit, and then appending (without warning) a disclaimer to those articles, one that impugns all the contributors to the issue. Second, there is the fact that the editorial misconduct was brought about by lobbying from proponents of Intelligent Design. The first misconduct alone would be reason to think the EICs should be fired or resign; the second simply amplifies the objectionable nature of the conduct. (3) I would have expected logicians, in particular, to know what ad hominem arguments are; there are no fallacious ad hominem articles in the Synthese issue, as has been discussed on the New Apps blog at some length (to which I have linked previously). More precisely, Professor Forrest's piece was an exercise in both philosophy and the history and sociology of science; in its latter guise, it had of course to consider facts about one of the main public lobbyists for the Intelligent Design movement in the US, namely, Francis Beckwith. (4) It is just breathtaking for parochial logicians in the Netherlands, who are either indifferent to or ignorant of the political ramifications of the editorial misconduct of the Synthese EICs in the United States, to accuse anyone else of parochialism. Again, I refer them to the extended discussion at the New APPS blog–perhaps start here: http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/04/a-petition-focused-on-the-synthese-editors-disclaimer-and-on-beckwiths-use-thereof.html

    Reply
  13. Steven French

    I have always enjoyed excellent relations with Springer. When I was editor of another of their journals (a less prestigious one than Synthese) and was threatened with legal action by a disgruntled author, the Springer folk gave me their full and unqualified support (pointing out, for example, that the author's suit would receive short shrift in a Netherlands court). I cannot imagine that they would do any less for the EiC of Synthese, unless the threat of legal action was much stronger and better grounded than in my case. But then I think the academic community should be told, not least so that those of us who take on similar editorial duties can be aware of the possible threats and take appropriate steps to defend ourselves against them.
    If there was no such legal threat then the behaviour of the EiC remains bizarre and the reputation of both Synthese and Springer has clearly been tarnished. The subsequent response of the EiC does little, if anything, to remove that stain. This is particularly unfortunate in the UK context of diminished support for journal subscriptions and demands from libraries for justification for maintaining such subscriptions to particularly expensive journals such as Synthese.
    I think a boycott should generally be a last resort but in this case, given the weak response and lack of the kind of apology that is needed to draw a line under this sorry affair, I really see no alternative.

    Reply
  14. Mohan Matthen

    Two points in response to Professors Veltman and Stokhof, both small.

    First, I disagree that had ID not been at issue, there would have been no protest. In earlier comments, I said something to the following effect: suppose you had written an article on some topic in metaphysics, and after it had been finally accepted, and even published, it appeared in a print issue of Mind alongside an editorial disclaimer. How would you feel? It's true that such an incident wouldn't generate the wide attention this one has got, but that's because the disclaimer came in response to completely non-philosophically motivated pressure. You could (and in your position should) argue that the issue was politicized by the interaction of the editors and whoever wrote to them.

    Second: There is no need for the EiCs to resign. After all, Synthese is private property. It is entirely up to Synthese to appoint EiCs, and up to them to decide what procedures to use in appointing them. It is also up to members of the philosophical community to decide how they want to deal with Synthese. In my view, which has been stated earlier in this thread, Synthese has a diminished reputation, largely because the editors did not respond in a timely and open fashion. Bottom line: it is still an A-list journal for ESF and other granting agencies. But it was never in the top-twenty, in my opinion, and it's less "reputable" now. And as a result, many individuals will be less willing to referee for it, to submit articles to it, to count it as a substantial venue, etc.

    I think it is not too late for the editors to show themselves as thoughtful, honourable members of the philosophical community. One way to do this would be for them to put a less evasive statement on the Synthese website (or at least to put a link to such a statement on the Synthese website). (By the way, one of the most offensive pieces of behaviour on their part was to post their response in a form not searchable by web-crawlers on a website created ad hoc, and which contains no other material.)

    Reply
  15. Wesley R. Elsberry

    Profs. Veltman and Stokhof,

    I am a contributor to the special issue. I have been vocal in my criticism of the Editors-in-Chief and whatever other parties may have been part of the decision to attach a vague disclaimer to the special issue. I see this as a violation of the professional editor-author relationship, and as such that has nothing at all to do with the topic of the special issue. If you look at what I've written about the disclaimer, you'll find that I have consistently stuck to discussion of the editor-author problem and left off speculation about the motivation. I resent the implication that I would be any less vocal had the topic been something other than evolution and "intelligent design" creationism. I would hope that others interested in the professional integrity of journals would agree that the authors in the special issue have a legitimate complaint that holds regardless of the particular context of topic.

    Reply
  16. Matthew Kramer

    If the editors of a journal in my areas of philosophy were to engage in behavior similar to that of the Synthese editors, I would certainly decline to submit any further articles there. Authors of articles should be able to trust the editors of the journals in which the articles appear. I wouldn't feel that I could trust any editors who behave as the Synthese editors have behaved.

    Reply
  17. Thom Brooks

    Journals have come up often in recent posts, not least regarding Synthese. Would there be plans for a Philosophical Gourmet Report…for ranking journals?

    Reply

Designed with WordPress