Peer review for the Public Philosophy Journal is formative in nature.
At its core, formative peer review is a structured form of peer engagement rooted in trust and a shared commitment to improving the work through candid and collegial feedback. The review process is formative in a twofold sense: on one hand, it is designed to shape the work so that it might more effectively enrich public life; on the other hand, it is designed to cultivate habits of responsiveness between the participants themselves. Because the review process is formative in this twofold sense, each participant must enter into it with a willingness to learn, to be transformed by the process itself.
Formative review is thus undertaken by colleagues in the specific sense associated with the Latin roots of that term - collēga, one chosen along with another, a partner in office, etc. The word combines the prefix, “col-,” together, and “legĕre,” to choose. In the context of the PPJ, what is chosen together is the shared attempt to develop and improve the scholarly artifact under consideration, be it a written article, a video documentary, a podcast, or another mode of scholarly expression. Together colleagues develop an inclusive, supportive space in which ideas are developed and refined collaboratively, and in a way that reflects the PPJ’s broader mission to integrate and cultivate these values in public life. Because the PPJ understands the practice of publishing, including the process of peer review, as a way of creating publics, the formative peer review process is designed both to improve the work under consideration and to cultivate this thicker sense of collegiality.
At the heart of these publicly inflected publishing efforts is our unique formative peer review process. Formative peer review at the PPJ is designed to create a culture of shared scholarly practice between a composer-nominated reviewer who is publicly engaged with the work addressed by the submission, the composer, and a complementary reviewer identified by the peer review coordinator in collaboration with the composer.
Peer Review Coordinator
Upon submitting their work, composers are asked to nominate a peer reviewer who is engaged with the issue of public concern addressed by the submission. To facilitate formative peer engagement, each submission is then assigned to a review coordinator whose first task is to identify a complementary reviewer in collaboration with the composer.
Reviewers and composers are able to view and engage each other's comments in conversation during the review process. Coordinators play an active and vital role in that conversation, ensuring that it unfolds in a collegial and caring way. They stimulate ongoing dialogue between composers and peer reviewers by encouraging composers to respond more thoroughly to reviewer feedback, and encouraging reviewers to provide persistent support to composers as their works advance toward publication.
Like peer reviewers, coordinators are offered the opportunity at the end of the process to compose holistic responses that may be published alongside the work itself.
Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers are asked to bring their best selves to the process and to respond to the work as they would to that of a friend whose success they seek to foster.
Rather than orienting peer review toward evaluation and gatekeeping, our formative engagement approach asks all interlocutors to enter into dialogue with one another as colleagues committed to enriching the quality of the submission under consideration.
Composers were invited to submit content that speaks in a register that attends equally to the following style criteria: relevance, accessibility, intellectual coherence, and scholarly engagement.
As the review process unfolds, we ask peer reviewers to consider these four criteria throughout the review process, even as they offer other considered advice about how to improve submission under consideration.
Submissions have relevance when they are timely and responsive to an issue of public concern.
Submissions are accessible when they connect with the public at large and resonate with publicly engaged individuals and organizations. This may require unpacking technical terms and concepts.
Submissions demonstrate intellectual coherence by reasoning for and providing evidence to support claims, as well as by identifying theoretical concepts that amplify understanding of the public concern under consideration.
As examples of scholarly engagement, submissions are aware of and receptive to pertinent, ongoing dialogues within and beyond the academy, whether encountered in literature or other mediums of scholarly conversation.