Peer review, politics and pluralism

The first part of this paper describes the editorial decisions that led to the publishing of The Skeptical Environmentalist (TSE) and the rejection of requests by critics that Cambridge should cease publication on the grounds of claims that it had not been peer-reviewed and that it would be abused by right wing political interests seeking justification for opposing new environmental regulation. The second part focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of peer review and compares the editorial decision-making process, including peer review in journals and book publishers. The third part of the paper explores the role of political considerations in editorial decision-making and compares the controversy surrounding TSE with other recent controversial publications in both the arts and sciences. The final part of the article draws on the work of political scientist and constitutional lawyer Cass Sunstein to argue that the academy is based on the principle of pluralism and that University Presses acting as “general interest intermediaries” have a particular responsibility to publish a wide range of opinion. Political pressure on presses to exercise a form of self-censorship should be resisted. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.