Wewould like to begin our first editorial by expressing our deep gratitude to our previous editor, Henry S. Richardson. Over the past decade, Henry guided Ethics skillfully and with painstaking attention, as the journal transitioned to its online management system and as he adjusted to an everincreasingworkload. (From the time thatHenry began,October 2008, until the time he stepped down, July 2018, the submission rate more than doubled.)His steady hand andgood cheerhave left the journal in a strong position. Reading over Henry’s past editorials, our admiration has only deepened. He poured his heart and hard work into the journal, and we hope to continue the high standard that he set. Wewould like to thank outgoing book review editorMark vanRoojen for his years of invaluable service and to welcome Billy Dunaway, our new book review editor. Ethics remains committed to publishing the best work in normative ethics and metaethics, as well as in social, political, and legal philosophy. We strive to represent a diverse range of outlooks, styles, and specialties, and we work hard to make sure that our editorial board reflects this, with philosophers from around the world who have diverse research interests. The associate editors put a good deal of time and effort into providing feedback for authors that is aimed at improving their papers. One issue we would like to address is the manuscript review process. Ethics is well known for its rigorous system of review. Our process is triple anonymous, so neither the handling editor and associate editor nor the referees are aware of the identity of the author. This process has been designed to reduce as much as feasible the role of bias or prejudice in the reviewing process. The process is also intended to help maintain the high quality of articles in Ethics. Once a manuscript has been sorted by an assistant and sent to an editor, either Julia or Connie, the editor either desk rejects the manuscript or sends it along to an associate editor. The associate editor then decides to either reject the manuscript or send it out for further review. If the pa-

中文翻译：

---

社论：审查过程

我们要开始我们的第一篇社论，向我们的前任编辑 Henry S. Richardson 表示深深的感谢。在过去的十年中，随着期刊过渡到其在线管理系统并适应不断增加的工作量，Henry 巧妙地、精心地指导了 Ethics。（从Henry 2008 年10 月开始，直到他卸任的时候，2018 年7 月，投稿率翻了一番多。）他稳重的手和良好的心情使该杂志处于强势地位。阅读亨利过去的社论，我们的钦佩只会加深。他为杂志倾注了他的心血和辛勤工作，我们希望继续他设定的高标准。我们要感谢即将离任的书评编辑 Mark vanRoojen 多年来提供的宝贵服务，并欢迎我们的新书评编辑 Billy Dunaway。Ethics 仍然致力于出版规范伦理学和元伦理学以及社会、政治和法律哲学方面的最佳作品。我们努力代表各种各样的观点、风格和专业，我们努力确保我们的编辑委员会反映这一点，来自世界各地的哲学家有着不同的研究兴趣。副主编投入大量时间和精力为作者提供反馈，旨在改进他们的论文。我们想解决的一个问题是稿件审查过程。道德以其严格的审查制度而闻名。我们的过程是三重匿名的，所以无论是主编和副主编还是审稿人都不知道作者的身份。该过程旨在尽可能减少审查过程中偏见或偏见的作用。该过程还旨在帮助保持道德规范文章的高质量。一旦手稿由助理分类并发送给编辑，无论是朱莉娅还是康妮，编辑要么拒绝该手稿，要么将其发送给副主编。然后，副主编决定要么拒绝稿件，要么将其送去进一步审查。如果帕- 然后，副主编决定要么拒绝稿件，要么将其送去进一步审查。如果帕- 然后，副主编决定要么拒绝稿件，要么将其送去进一步审查。如果帕-