Category Archives: Open peer review

Call for reviewers: Mauro Lenci, “Italian moderates between absolute monarchy and the sovereignty of the people”

Via di mezzo 38, targa con nome della via da Wikimedia CommonsBetween 1843 and 1861, Italian moderates were crucial in the process of the country’s unification. The latest historiography has extensively analyzed their role in all of its internal and international implications and has often emphasized their cultural backwardness in comparison to the major European currents of thought.

On the other hand, the Italian historian Luca Mannori has denounced the inconsistency of portraying Italian liberals as feeble and narrow-minded, vis à vis their mobilization for the constitution involving all of the states of the peninsula in the first few months of 1848. Indeed, their theories proved to be decisive in the transition from the old monarchic and aristocratic world to the new democratic one. Therefore, according to Mauro Lenci, it is worth analyzing their two-faced relation with popular sovereignty, to contribute to understand the neglected political and theoretical reasons of their success.

We are submitting the essay to our experimental open peer review. Commenting is easy: you should simply register here, log in our Commentbfp site, click back to Mauro Lenci’s paper and start writing your remarks.

If you are not familiar with the Commentpress interface we are using, check How to read a Commenpress document on the Commentpress site. If you need more information, ask us.

Mauro Lenci, Scylla and Charybdis: Italian moderates between absolute monarchy and the sovereignty of the people 1843–1861

DOI

Tags:

Accessi: 40

Research evaluation and academic freedom: an Italian debate

Particolare della Scuola di Atene di Raffaello The Bollettino telematico di filosofia politica is submitting to an open peer review a couple of articles meant for the debate on the theoretical and practical justification of the Italian research assessment system, which entrusts an academic élite nominated by the government with a huge, unbalanced power. In the opinion of Andrea Bonaccorsi, a former member of the Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of the University and Research Institutes board of directors, the governmental evaluation of scientific research can be justified on the basis of his – peculiar – reading of R.K. Merton’s normative sociology of science.

The articles written, respectively, by Roberto Caso and Maria Chiara Pievatolo, scrutinize Bonaccorsi’s claims both from a legal and from a philosophical point of view.

Roberto Caso, in Una valutazione (della ricerca) dal volto umano: la missione impossibile di Andrea Bonaccorsi [The Human Face of Evaluation of Science: the Mission Impossible of Andrea Bonaccorsi], challenges the main argument of Bonaccorsi, according to which the governmental evaluation of scientific research is an expression of Mertonian norms of science (communism, universalism, disinterestedness, organized skepticism). Such an interpretation, in Roberto Caso’s opinion, is untenable for two main reasons:

  • it rests on a remarkable misrepresentation of Merton’ s thought;
  • it neglects the difference between fixed, formal legal rules and fluid, informal norms; hence, it underestimates the effects of a transformation from the former to the latter.

Maria Chiara Pievatolo’s La bilancia e la spada: scienza di stato e valutazione della ricerca [The scale and the sword: science, government and research evaluation] goal is showing that the research assessment system resulting from Bonaccorsi’s misinterpretation of Merton would be both practically despotic and theoretically retrograde even if, at the very moment of the evaluation, the sociological description of the state of the research were true and we lived in a faultless Mertonian world.

The resulting system would be despotic because it would transform an informal ethos into a rigid set of administrative laws outside the researchers’ control; and it would be retrograde because such a set would also freeze the evolution of the ways in which scientists publish, discuss and assess their works, in a kind of enchanted Sleeping Beauty castle.

Both articles are in Italian: nostra res agitur. You may review them on SJScience.org, here and here.

DOI

DOI

Tags:

Accessi: 427

Edmund Burke and the issue of a conservative and liberal tradition in Italy, 1791-1945 – Call for Reviewers

We are submitting the article Edmund Burke and the issue of a conservative and liberal tradition in Italy, 1791-1945 by Mauro Lenci to an experimental open peer review.

Commenting is easy: you should simply register here, log in our Commentbfp site, click back to Mauro Lencii’s paper and start writing your remarks.

If you are not familiar with the Commentpress interface we are using, check How to read a Commenpress document on the Commentpress site. If you need more information, ask us.

Tags:

Accessi: 184

Justice and the Family in a Transnational Perspective – Call for Reviewers

We are submitting the article Justice and the Family in a Transnational Perspective by Brunella Casalini to an experimental open peer review.

Commenting is easy: you should simply register here, log in our Commentbfp site, click back to Brunella Casalini’s paper and start writing your remarks.

If you are not familiar with the Commentpress interface we are using, check How to read a Commentpress document on the Commentpress site. If you need  more information, ask us.

 

Tags:

Accessi: 141