A Possible Case of Censorship of Submissions on the Nature of Consciousness
Keywords:consciousness, mind–brain relationship, scientific journal, dogmatism, physicalism, dualism, scientific communication
To advance the scientific understanding of consciousness, one should be open to theoretical pluralism to freely develop and rigorously test a wide diversity of paradigm candidates and communicate the ideas and findings to the scientific community. Science development is jeopardized when journals tend to present a field’s state-of-the-art findings in a biased or misguided way or suppress investigations of a particular perspective. We describe the challenges and pitfalls we faced as guest editors during the editorial review process of a special issue of the journal Frontiers on “The Nature of Consciousness” and how we responded to it. We describe and discuss how the journal staff overruled our editorial role to enforce what was very likely academic censorship. We then offer a couple of recommendations to authors and editors that may face similar issues. We believe that following these recommendations will ultimately contribute to practical and theoretical advances in the understanding the nature of consciousness and the mind–brain relation.
Cardeña, E. (2014). A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017
Cardeña, E. (2015). The unbearable fear of psi: On scientific censorship in the 21st century. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 29(4), 601–620.
Chibeni, S. S., & Moreira-Almeida, A. (2007). Remarks on the scientific exploration of "anomalous" psychiatric phenomena. Archives of Clinical Psychiatry, 34, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-60832007000700003.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press.
Moreira-Almeida, A., & Araujo, S. d. F. (2017). The mind-brain problem in psychiatry: Why theoretical pluralism is better than theoretical monism. Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences, 10, 23–25.
Moreira-Almeida, A., Araujo, S. F., & Cloninger, C. R. (2018). The presentation of the mind-brain problem in leading psychiatry journals. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 40(3), 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2017-2342.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Marina Weiler, Raphael F. Casseb, Alexander Moreira-Almeida
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JAEX are open access, freely and universally accessible online, and archived in the open journal’s Lund University website (https://journals.lub.lu.se). Articles in JAEX can be distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CCBY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, with appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, a link to the Creative Commons license, and an indication if changes were made.