There’s a lengthy discussion of editorial (mal)practice over at DailyNous. In the discussion, a sub-thread developed about invited versus unsolicited papers, and whether they should be marked as such.
For example, the journal I edit, Res Philosophica, recently had a call for papers on transformative experience. We noted in the call for papers that unsolicited papers that are accepted will be published alongside invited papers (and named the authors of the invited papers). All of the papers are refereed, but obviously the invited papers are not triple anonymous. For the invited papers, I default to double anonymous, but on occasion I have used single anonymous review. (For what it’s worth, I never serve as the referee.)
I thought putting the names of the invited papers in the call for papers was transparent, but some of the discussants over at Daily Nous suggested something further: Put a note in all published papers that indicates how the paper was reviewed.
I’m initially inclined to think this is a great idea. A title note, for example, might go something like this: “This paper was invited and double anonymous reviewed by two referees.” Or “This paper was unsolicited and was triple anonymous reviewed by three referees.”
Two questions for discussion:
1) Is this a good idea? I worry that I’m missing potential downsides or pitfalls.
2) If it is a good idea, what information would be good to include? Invited vs unsolicited; triple- vs double vs single-anonymous review; number of referees; date of submission; date of acceptance? Others?