Jacob Levy asks an interesting question about group blogs staffed by academics:
For purposes of academic conflict-of-interest norms, what sort of relationship do co-bloggers have to one another?
He wonders whether people who post on the same blog should do things like review one another’s papers or write tenure letters and so on. I have a mental picture of a rapidly branching tree of hypothetical cases that needs to be pruned near the base. Things like tenure letters seem like an easy case: you’re supposed to disclose your relationship to the person you’re evaluating anyway. (“Prof. Healy’s ill-informed pot-shots have been a constant irritant in my comments threads for years, despite my numerous attempts to ban him.”) You’d just need to get over the hump of embarrassment about admitting you know someone through a blog.
Reviewing articles is a bit tricker, partly because conventions vary across disciplines. Sociology and Politics aspire to be a science, so journals do double-blind reviews. Economics knows it is a science, so journals only do single-blind reviews, where the reviewer knows the author’s name. (The reviewer can then treat the author’s name as a piece of information about the paper, and economize accordingly by not checking the math if it’s someone famous and only reading the abstract, and perhaps checking the bibliography for one’s own name, if it’s someone unknown. Of course, homo economicus would free-ride on the review process in the first place. Economists are well-aware of this, which is why their journals have longer turnaround times.) I believe Law journals review articles mainly by weight.
Judgments about the appropriateness of reviewing a co-blogger’s work will be conditioned on these practices. People often review papers written by people they know, and perhaps are friends with, even in cases where reviews are double-blind. This seems inevitable. The reverse also happens, with people getting papers to review written by their enemies, intellectual or otherwise. Authors can sometimes pre-empt this by suggesting to the editors that Prof. X has a bee in her bonnet about their work. There’s no equivalent for the friendship problem, as authors will not say “Here is a list of my friends. Do not send the paper to them.” I doubt that there’s some additional mechanism that would allow you to free the reviewing process from the social networks it’s embedded in. Editors rely on these networks to find competent reviewers in the first place, and paper-writing is an inescapably social process incorporating presentation of one’s work to others, solicitation of comments and all the rest of it.
Formal ties to others (co-author, colleague, relation, spouse) will often rule someone out of consideration as a reviewer. The less formal the tie, the less weight it carries. (Though of course it may be precisely these ties that grease the wheels of people’s careers. So it goes.) Being a co-blogger is not quite the same as being a co-author, and it’s not quite the same as being in the same department. But it seems closer to either than simply having been on the same conference panel. It’s more like, say, having been at grad school together. So my feeling is that an editor might legitimately weigh it against you when deciding whether to send you a paper, but it ought not to count as seriously as co-authorship or being a colleague, and reviewers shouldn’t have to fess up to it as a matter of course. As always in such cases, you have to rely on the practical judgment of the participants and their ability to apply the standards of the field (editors who know what’s happening, authors and reviewers who had the right scruples instilled in grad school). This is why it’s whole subfields and disciplines, rather than individuals, that tend to go rotten.
Interesting…
economics journals reveal the author’s name to the referee. Even so, due to the citations, you can frequently not help knowing whose paper you are refereeing. If not the citations, then you’ve seen the paper in a conference or seminar—I’m not sure there’s a good way around this, other than to have uninformed referees.
AB
[sorry if this was posted twice]
Yeah, that’s part of what I was saying when I wrote “I doubt that there’s some additional mechanism that would allow you to free the reviewing process from the social networks it’s embedded in. Editors rely on these networks to find competent reviewers in the first place”
Presumably if there was a group blog of mathematicians, they’d address this problem by all having sexual relationships with one another, thus reducing the problem to one already solved.
There’s a fairly big assumption in that last post…
Jacob suspects that most of the Timberites have never met each other — in fact I suspect that despite my general taciturn-ness I have met more of them than any other (Micah, Chris, and Jon — any advance on 3?). I think that co-blogging is an irrelevance — I’d feel much better about refereeing stuff by any co-blogger (including Chris, whom I know best) than by many other people with whom I have no formal connections, but whom I know better.
I think the ethics of refereeing stuff by people you attended grad school with are much more complicated. I say that as someone who didn’t go to a fancy grad school, so have very few classmates around in the profession. I’d be amazed if my stuff has ever been refereed by a classmate. It seems to me that having classmates referee your stuff is one of the biggest advanatages of going to a fancy grad school. (I’m not complaining, just observing).
BTW, Ethics, the best journal in my field, is very explicit in asking referees NOT to decline to referee a paper just on the grounds that they recognise the paper or know the author.
If conflict of interest worries you that much, you could always start advocating Robin Hanson-style “idea markets”. Presumably, if the sums involved are large enough, the lure of material gain will induce people to give new ideas a fair shake, even if they come from co-bloggers. :)
Setting aside any question of outright recusal, is there (or should there be) an expectation that a reviewer will disclose any personal connections to the reviewee?
If I remember correctly from my time as a copy editor at a bio. journal: People would often ask that X, a rival in the field, not review their work. This wasn’t entirely because they thought “X hates my work,” but because they didn’t want X to find out what they were up to.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review