Journal of Controversial Ideas

[marshwiggle]

This new journal just published its first issue, (although it's been in the works since 2013).

From their editorial policies:

The Journal of Controversial Ideas welcomes articles on a wide range of topics, and from a variety of disciplines, provided they address issues that have implications for society at large. The aim of the journal is to enable people to publish ideas that they reasonably expect will be regarded by some as offensive, immoral, or dangerous, and to provide them with the opportunity to do so using a pseudonym, if they so choose. Without such an opportunity, some potential authors might be deterred from publishing ideas or arguments that could improve our understanding of issues of great moral, political, or social significance.

The journal is neutral with respect to moral, political, philosophical, religious, and social views. Papers defending ideas commonly considered controversial by liberals or progressives, and those defending ideas considered controversial by conservatives or libertarians, are equally welcome.

In the first issue, 3/10 authors are using a pseudonym.

[Parasaurolophus]

It doesn't look to me like any of the articles they've published could not have found a home in an extant journal.

[apl68]

Is this a vanity publication?

[Caracal]

Is this a vanity publication?

Ugh, it seems like a better title might be "Journal of self indulgent and silly ideas."

[Parasaurolophus]

Is this a vanity publication?

It's a real journal. But it is for people who want to stoke their Free Speech Hero egos.

[ciao_yall]

This new journal just published its first issue, (although it's been in the works since 2013).

From their editorial policies:

The Journal of Controversial Ideas welcomes articles on a wide range of topics, and from a variety of disciplines, provided they address issues that have implications for society at large. The aim of the journal is to enable people to publish ideas that they reasonably expect will be regarded by some as offensive, immoral, or dangerous, and to provide them with the opportunity to do so using a pseudonym, if they so choose. Without such an opportunity, some potential authors might be deterred from publishing ideas or arguments that could improve our understanding of issues of great moral, political, or social significance.

The journal is neutral with respect to moral, political, philosophical, religious, and social views. Papers defending ideas commonly considered controversial by liberals or progressives, and those defending ideas considered controversial by conservatives or libertarians, are equally welcome.

In the first issue, 3/10 authors are using a pseudonym.

The remaining 7/10 are a bit thirsty too excited about having a CV item called  "Journal of Controversial Ideas" as a conversation piece. I guess they don't have anything else to talk about?

[marshwiggle]

Is this a vanity publication?

No, it's peer reviewed.

Remember the Hypatia controversy from 2017?

That was a serious threat to the career of Rebecca Tuvel. That's the kind of thing this journal potentially protects against.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think Leslie Green's (Oxford) take is pretty much right, here: there's nothing especially controversial in that first issue, which makes it sort of hard to justify the journal's creation.

[Hibush]

Oh no, I went down that rabbit hole.

Quillette also has a worthwhile take. It identifies the mundane and the surprising, and chuckles at the ironies.

The editors are from Oxford, Milan and Princeton, so they are in positions of relative academic security. They can professionally afford to do something like this and presumably have a sense of what is controversial among people who put serious thought into the topic being discussed.

The acceptance rate was about 10% for the first issue, so they are screening out a lot of stuff about which there is little controversy that it is nonsense.

[marshwiggle]

I think Leslie Green's (Oxford) take is pretty much right, here: there's nothing especially controversial in that first issue, which makes it sort of hard to justify the journal's creation.

From the editorial:

Ideally, the need for this journal will be short­lived because our efforts will help
to foster cultural conditions in which editors of academic journals will no longer have
to worry about publishing controversial papers, and researchers will be able to publish
controversial articles in any journal they find appropriate without fearing that doing so
will endanger their well­being or career. But until then, we will do our best to make sure
that the fear of a hostile response does not intimidate authors from publishing important,
well­argued, but controversial ideas.

So they'd rather it didn't need to exist.

[Caracal]

I think Leslie Green's (Oxford) take is pretty much right, here: there's nothing especially controversial in that first issue, which makes it sort of hard to justify the journal's creation.

It's stuff that people who are writing it would like to imagine is controversial, which is why most of it seems so incredibly tiresome. People with actual ideas are excited about them because they think they are valuable or interesting or important. People who are mostly interested in being controversial are generally bores.

[Puget]

Oh no, I went down that rabbit hole.

Quillette also has a worthwhile take. It identifies the mundane and the surprising, and chuckles at the ironies.

The editors are from Oxford, Milan and Princeton, so they are in positions of relative academic security. They can professionally afford to do something like this and presumably have a sense of what is controversial among people who put serious thought into the topic being discussed.

The acceptance rate was about 10% for the first issue, so they are screening out a lot of stuff about which there is little controversy that it is nonsense.

Interesting summary-- my main takeaway was that things that are completely uncontroversial in one field are apparently controversial in others:
If you told a psychologist, "look, I know this is controversial, but I really think individual differences (NOT group differences mind you) in cognition are substantially genetic" (the apparent thesis of one of these "controversial" papers), they would look at you like you were crazy, not because it is controversial but just the opposite-- it is completely accepted as true based on a sh*t ton of evidence and it would be very controversial (as in "how exactly do you explain that sh*t ton of evidence then?) to argue otherwise.

How is it possible humanities fields that seek to speak to such issues have drifted so far out of touch with the actual science? I don't want to be one of those people who piles on to the humanities but this is not a good look.

[Parasaurolophus]

Interesting summary-- my main takeaway was that things that are completely uncontroversial in one field are apparently controversial in others:
If you told a psychologist, "look, I know this is controversial, but I really think individual differences (NOT group differences mind you) in cognition are substantially genetic" (the apparent thesis of one of these "controversial" papers), they would look at you like you were crazy, not because it is controversial but just the opposite-- it is completely accepted as true based on a sh*t ton of evidence and it would be very controversial (as in "how exactly do you explain that sh*t ton of evidence then?) to argue otherwise.

How is it possible humanities fields that seek to speak to such issues have drifted so far out of touch with the actual science? I don't want to be one of those people who piles on to the humanities but this is not a good look.

I would say they haven't. But there are plenty of people out there who have an axe to grind and can't be bothered to do their homework.

(The topic has come up a few times in the last five or so years in the discussion of posts on prominent philosophy blogs--note that this is ostensibly a philosophy journal--and although there's a small group FSHists who are very loud in their assertions, they've been vastly outnumbered by the better-informed.)

But yeah, it's a bad look.

[Wahoo Redux]

I dunno, these are kind of interesting articles.  I'm intrigued.  The couple I've looked at are well-written and do indeed take on subjects that would be perilous for academics (or anyone, really) to blog or publish, if they could even find a publisher.

The world would have to give this some time to see how it develops.

It is so not surprising that Marshy posted this link.  In fact, Marshy, I think this is made to order for you.  If you do publish here, use a pseudonym or everyone who regularly reads The Fora will know who you are.

[marshwiggle]

I dunno, these are kind of interesting articles.  I'm intrigued.  The couple I've looked at are well-written and do indeed take on subjects that would be perilous for academics (or anyone, really) to blog or publish, if they could even find a publisher.

The world would have to give this some time to see how it develops.

It is so not surprising that Marshy posted this link.  In fact, Marshy, I think this is made to order for you.  If you do publish here, use a pseudonym or everyone who regularly reads The Fora will know who you are.

If I were a researcher, I'd keep that in mind. (I found out about it on Quillette, as someone mentioned upthread.)

It will be interesting to see what happens if an article on there published under a pseudonym blows up. I predict a whole bunch of academics will rant about the use of a pseudonym, (rather than presenting a proper article refuting it), and some may go as far as to try and figure out the author to cancel them in the manner the journal is trying to prevent.