[Buddha-l] Conservative and liberal Buddhists

[Richard Hayes]

On May 28, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Vera, Pedro L. wrote:

> Which leads to what may be an entirely naive question, but is there peer-review in the humanities for journal articles or is it restricted to the sciences?

Philosophical journals are peer reviewed, and the more rigorous the reviewing process (double-lind reviews being the most rigorous), and the larger the percentage of articles rejected (some philosophical journals accept only 5% of submitted articles), the more merit the author gets in the eyes of the tenure and promotion committees. The most prestigious religious studies journals are also peer reviewed. In Buddhist studies, there are several on-line journals, such as Journal of Buddhist Ethics, that are available to anyone at no cost, that are peer reviewed.

In the humanities reviewing can be whimsical and even a bit nasty at times. Years ago I submitted an article on Buddhism to a religious studies journal, and an anonymous reviewer wrote the comment that while the article was interesting enough, it would have been more interesting had it been on an entirely different topic. The editor accepted the article anyway. 

Twice I have been involved in assessing project proposals for the NEH and have been struck by how some people (a small minority) use anonymous reviews to promote their own prejudices. I recall a reviewer recommending that a project in Buddhist philosophy be rejected because there are already too many articles on Buddhist philosophy. I also recall a reviewer recommending rejection because a project looked like one that might be a commercial success, and the NEW ought to underwrite only projects that have no hope of making money in the commercial market.

My father published a lot of articles and monographs on geology, and I can recall him commenting that even scientists can be petty in their reviews. Perhaps it is a feature of being human to hide behind anonymity to promote one's pet prejudices.

Richard Hayes