REVIEW COORDINATOR: Andrea Walsh

Post Img
March 9th, 2018 7:59:54 pm

PPJ Community Ethics Statement

Terms & Conditions Icon

Abstract

The purpose of this statement is to connect the PPJ's community ethics standards more broadly with its mission and core values, to communicate policies concerning PPJ community engagement, and to introduce a new requirement for submitting original work for Formative Peer Review: an engaged scholarship statement.

Public Philosophy Journal Community Ethics I. Core ValuesThe PPJ seeks to nourish a culture of public scholarship founded on the acknowledgement that the mechanisms which produce scholarship directly influence whose voices will be heard, valued, and amplified. Too often and for too long these mechanisms have produced scholarship that reflects habits of bias and exclusion rather than the diversity of composers (or authors), readers, and issues that make up real public communities.1 Mainstream understandings of who counts as a scholar and what counts as scholarship require collective re-envisioning to reorganize how knowledge is developed, evaluated, and circulated through peer review and post-publication processes. This challenge demands a close look at the roles and responsibilities of those who curate and superintend academic domains, including publishing practices. The state of rapid and intense flux which characterizes today’s academic institutions presents exciting opportunities for changing the rules and rebuilding scholarly infrastructure from the ground up. Created as a community-driven space for innovating new, more inclusive means of practicing scholarship, the PPJ’s primary moral and political responsibility is to empower composers to access the means of scholarly production, thus helping to supplant scholarly habits that discourage and exclude with a breadth of voices collectively charting the path that lies ahead. The PPJ’s code of community ethics aims to mobilize and diversify philosophical publics. We aim to redistribute the control of scholarly production equally among those whose work obscures conventional boundaries between scholarship and activism. Nourishing a new “culture of public scholarship” means not only reforming the culture of publishing for those working within and outside of academic institutions but correcting binary habits of thinking to focus on the goals and visions that connect us as intellectual activists, regardless of formal academic affiliations. In place of over-valuing credentials, we maintain a thick sense of collegiality, encouraging us to share hard truths in ways that can mutually deepen and advance the impact of each other’s work. Thick collegiality means that all PPJ activities offer equal opportunities for participation, whether by engaging in PPJ Formative Peer Review as composers, peer reviewers, and review coordinators, curating content for the Current, joining conversations on our public forums, connecting with our developing Learning Network, or any other available activity. Additionally, our commitment to thick collegiality means we must continue to advance equal representation within the PPJ community to redress overrepresentation of certain groups and interests. Therefore, we are always reaching out to and collaborating with colleagues working beyond academe, as well as assessing user experience with the functionality and content of the PPJ platform to determine areas requiring improvement for serving a broad diversity of user interests and needs. As a community-driven project, the PPJ urges open dialogue about our engagement strategies for public outreach and service. All are invited to pose questions, concerns, and suggestions using the public comment forums, tweeting to @PubPhilJ, commenting on our Facebook or Humanities Commons pages, or emailing the editors directly. Insofar as the PPJ is defined by how it facilitates publicly shaped scholarship and its vision of scholarship as
1. We prefer the term “composers” over “authors” to emphasize the variety of mediums of submissions the PPJ receives and encourages (text, video, audio, artwork, etc.) and that submitting content for Formative Peer Review is open to researchers, activists, and artists working within and beyond academe alike.
PPJ Community Ethics Statement
PPJ Editors
a series of collective acts toward advancing a just world, it is the greater public itself to which the PPJ owes its momentum. II. Ethical ConductWe reject all forms of discrimination based on the race, color, gender orientation, sexual orientation, abilities, ethnicity, national origin, citizenship, religion, culture, age, education, and institutional and/or organizational affiliations of PPJ colleagues. We ask that everyone who participants in the PPJ community demonstrate respect for the perspectives, experiences, and rights of others by practicing habits of constructive communication while also understanding that all are equally encouraged to share their truths openly. Please notify the editors of any incidents that violate these community ethics standards. In cases of major or multiple violations, the editors reserve the right to remove content pertaining to the violations, to discontinue individual involvement in the PPJ activity in which the incident occurred or individual involvement in any and all PPJ activities, and/or to prohibit use of and access to community platforms. Major violations include, but are not limited to,
  • discriminating against, attacking, threatening, harassing, or silencing others;


  • posting discriminatory content or content that, if distributed, would expose its composer(s) or any others persons named therein to potential criminal harm;
  • sharing or taking credit for original ideas or content without receiving consent from or giving appropriate attribution to the creators.
  • Violations are considered minor when they do not involve any of the actions highlighted above but otherwise conflict with the values of the PPJ community. Minor violations will be handled on a case-by-case basis, beginning, whenever possible, with conversations that support clear, mutual insight into how the action under consideration conflicts with one or more of our community values. Learn more about copyrights, licensing, liability and indemnity, and our take down policy here.III. Terms of Editorial ReviewThe PPJ Formative Peer Review platform may be used for submissions seeking publication neither in the Journal nor in another scholarly venue (e.g., grants, action letters, and seminar papers on which students seek informal peer feedback). Submissions seeking publication in the Journal are sent to Formative Peer Review when they align with the PPJ’s publishing interests, style criteria, and submission guidelines and when composers both have agreed to the terms of submitting and tendered a brief engaged scholarship statement.The purpose of this statement is to offer composers opportunities to reflect on the quality of their submissions in light of the PPJ’s fourth style criterion: engagement with scholarly dialogue. Submissions are excellent examples of this criterion when they demonstrate awareness of, deep engagement with, and proper citation of scholarly literature by individuals working within the communities to which the issues under consideration are of particular relevance and concern. Submissions must demonstrate excellence in meeting this criterion to be considered for publication in the Journal. Later-stage drafts prepared for Formative Peer Review are expected to exemplify this criterion at the time of submission, and engaged scholarship statements should provide specific explanations of how the submissions represent engaged scholarship. Statements accompanying earlier-stage drafts should indicate composer reflection on instances where this criterion is satisfactorily or excellently met and areas in need of improvement, as well as commitment to improving engagement with scholarly dialogue as the review process unfolds. Writing this statement h
    PPJ Community Ethics Statement
    PPJ Editors
    elps to advance the scholarly and ethical integrity of the work under consideration. In cases where submissions seeking publication in the Journal meet all PPJ community ethics standards except for that of substantial engagement with pertinent scholarly dialogue, and/or when composers have not tendered an engaged dialogue statement, it is at the discretion of the editors whether to invite composers(s) to revise and resubmit.Upon submitting original work for Formative Peer Review, composers will be prompted to sign an electronic form indicating understanding and acceptance of the terms of submission. For more information about these terms, please visit http://publicphilosophyjournal.org/our-guidelines/.

    Tags

    Citation

    Public Philosophy Journal Editors

    Copyright

    03.09.2018

    COMMENTS ON THIS SUBMISSION

    Andrea Walsh
    March 21, 2018 at 1:25 pm

    For reviewers:


    _____________

    "Where are you?"


    We regard this statement to be in a mid to late stage of development. Drafted by the editorial team, it has since been revised in light of initial feedback from Kathleen Fitzpatrick and Nancy Maron. 


    "What do you need?"


    1. Are there any terms or passages in need of revision for improving on accessibility? 

    2. What expectations, policies, or procedures might you like to see added or revised in section two ("Code of Ethics")? 

    3. Given that this is a new requirement, we seek your feedback on the engaged scholarship statement as described in section three. For example, how would you respond to this requirement if you were submitting original content for Formative Peer Review? What particular sort of information might you, as a composer, specify in an engaged scholarship statement? Do you perceive any major disadvantages to requiring composers to tender these statements? 

    4. For accessibility, we'd like to keep the statement at a brief length. With that said, we seek your thoughts on its relation to the PPJ's scholarly dialogue criterion. Specifically, and bearing in mind that the statement purposes to inform colleagues about the PPJ's understanding of what constitutes, and the PPJ's expectations for, ethical community engagement, do you find it would benefit from engaging in dialogue with additional scholarly works? 


    "Engaged scholarship statement"


    As a learning resource, this statement is concerned with connecting the PPJ's core values and ethical standards with the PPJ mission more broadly. To that end, it draws on Christopher Long's writings on thick collegiality - where this concept significantly informs the PPJ mission - and it directs readers to pertinent passages on the PPJ website that contextualize and expand on its content. These passages include information about Formative Peer Review, the Current, and the PPJ's style criteria and submission guidelines, all of which in various ways speak to the PPJ's commitment to nurturing a culture of care and inclusivity within academic institutions and broader public life.