In light of this meta-question: Do the people that closed this post totally understand the subject matter of formal proofs of mathematical logic?

I think it might be a good idea to spell out our policy about anything that looks like "peer review" and whether we do it.



The stack exchange system is not designed to provide anything like "peer review."

First off, reputation is not a formal system for vetting who is an expert in a subject area like philosophy. Reputation comes from getting upvotes, asking questions, and a variety of other tasks. None of these provide the same sort of basis for considering someone a "peer" as is expected in peer review.

(this is not to say reputation does not over time and on the average indicate who is able to clearly and effectively answer people's questions about philosophy -- just that it isn't the same thing as academic publications and research that marks someone as a "peer" in the concept of peer review).

Second, the review part is also fundamentally against the SE model. We are not here to confirm or deny that someone's personal philosophy or argument is good or not. We are here to answer legitimate questions people face in trying to understand philosophy or by extension trying to see how a philosophical principle applies to an issue.

Thus, SE and especially philosophy.SE is not a venue for getting peer review.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .