The Berlin Journal of Philosophy
established 2011

Mad Dog Referee Reports:
An Anonymous Online Survey

To answer any of the following questions in the affirmative, please click in the box to the left of the question. The resulting total number of affirmative answers to that question to date will appear in the box to the right of it. Although you can answer each question only once, you can visit this page repeatedly to answer questions you earlier left unanswered, or to view the most recently updated totals.


You have already answered 0 out of 15 questions.

Has an editor ever sent you a referee report on your paper or manuscript submission thatTotal

(1) did not quote or cite any specific sentence, passage or argument from your text?
(2) did not mention any specific argument, position or theme in your text?
(3) recommended rejecting your text on the basis of criticisms unsubstantiated by reference to its actual content?
(4) recommended rejecting your text on the basis of criticisms irrelevant to its actual content?
(5) misrepresented an argument, position or theme in your text and criticized the misrepresentation rather than the actual content of your text?
(6) criticized or commented on you personally rather than on the content of your text?
(7) misrepresented you personally – for example, with respect to gender, race, ethnicity, age, professional status, institutional affiliation, academic pedigree, etc. – and criticized or commented on the misrepresentation rather than on the content of your text?
(8) criticized or commented on your purported motives for advancing a particular argument, position or theme, rather than on the actual content of that argument, position or theme?
(9) exaggerated into parody a particular argument, position or theme in your text, then criticized the parody rather than the actual content of your text (Note: this is not to be confused with reductio)?
(10) objected to your having criticized the views of an important personage in the field, even though or without regard to whether or not the criticism was justified?
(11) disparaged your text on the basis of other considerations unrelated to its actual content – for example, your gender, race, ethnicity, age, professional status, institutional affiliation, academic pedigree, etc.??
(12) disparaged your text using derogatory epithets – for example, "shoddy", "dimwitted", "juvenile", "idiotic", etc.?
(13) was clearly incompetent – for example, incoherent, subliterate, paranoid, raging, factually mistaken, ignorant of the literature, self-contradictory, self-pitying, self-aggrandizing – yet was cited by the editor as authoritative in deciding not to publish your text?
(14) exhibited any of the above traits, yet was cited by the editor as authoritative in deciding not to publish your text?
(15) exhibited none of the above traits?
  TOTAL NUMBER OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS TO DATE: