To be fair, the area around the University in Glasgow is nicer than the city centre, so perhaps that would make for a better comparison - you see a bit of it in the bottom pictures, but nothing very distinctive which gives the impression of 'Edinburgh minus castle and Arthur's Seat'.

And that's exactly the kind of work that I don't do in the book itself - so it it hopefully suggestive about what we should do next, but without really getting into that work itself. There's a link in the post above to the book's website, which has all of the publication details.

Honestly, the chapter on progress is a bit limited - it discusses Fricker and Medina's proposals in some detail, but it mostly takes the line that we should be suspicious is one-size-fits-all solutions and advocates careful and collaborative work on different areas (e.g. healthcare or the law).

"[[epistemic injustice] and [Dan Brown novels]] or [epistemic injustice and Dan Brown novels]?"

You decide

It's not typically required, but it's often suggested as best-practice. I took it to be an attempt to filter out reviews based on egregious misinterpretations of the paper under review. I have sometimes found it a useful exercise as part of reviewing, though a bit of a pain in the neck.

Yeah, I had the same thought but generalised - pretty much any two of them is already jarring. Actually, I'm just not sure I want anything to taste of wax.