Issues in Publishing , Editing , and Reviewing What If Social Scientists Had Reviewed Great Scientific Works of the Past ?

One might question whether the great works in the history of science would get good reviews if subjected to the type of reviewing process to which psychologists are forced to submit their manuscripts. In some ways, behavioral scientists are too critical, and in other ways they are insufficiently so. To explore these issues, we imagine that great works from the history of nonsocial sciences were submitted for review in behavioral science journals and present simulated editor letters summarizing the comments of behavioral science reviewers. The philosophical underpinnings and justifications of the arguments are discussed, and recommendations for improved reviewing are offered. Few people would be willing to assert that progress in the behavioral sciences has been as impressive as the progress made in other sciences. Usually, when people discuss these matters, they present reasons to justify the differences: the other sciences have existed for longer; the behavioral sciences are more difficult because the mind is less tangible than the body, the world, or the universe; there is more funding for other sciences than for the behavioral sciences; and so on. Although some of these justifications may have some merit, there is another possibility that behavioral scientists rarely consider: perhaps they are not as effective in their scientific reasoning and in the way they evaluate scientific research. It is not the most enjoyable thing in the world to have one’s area criticized. In addition, abstract arguments about the philosophy of science tend to have little effect on behavioral scientists. To sidestep both of these problems, we present great works from other sciences and imagine that they have been submitted to psychology journals to be evaluated by editors and reviewers. For each great work, we present a simulated editor letter that summarizes the comments of simulated reviewers. Subsequent to the presentations and editor letters, we provide an analysis of the letters. Our hope is that this will render our points more enjoyable, more concrete, and easier to understand than if they were presented in the usual abstract format. Also, doing it this way provides an element of drama that otherwise would be difficult to achieve. And if the reader gains an increased appreciation of the controversies and accomplishments in other areas of science, we would consider that to be a plus, particularly if the lessons are eventually applied successfully to psychology. We tried hard to make the reviews to be presented resemble reviews that we have actually experienced either in response to manuscripts that we have submitted to journals or in response to manuscripts of others on which we were reviewers (a situation in which, consequently, we were able to read the comments of the other reviewers). Some of the reviews also resemble opinions contemporary with the great works; it is not only behavioral scientists who have committed solecisms of reasoning, as other scientists have done so as well. A major goal is to dramatize that a reviewer who wishes to find fault is always able to do so. Therefore, the mere fact that a manuscript can be criticized provides insufficient reason to evaluate it negatively. Rather, one must consider the possible gains against the possible losses involved, and if the former outweigh the latter, the work should be evaluated positively in spite of the potential criticisms. NONSOCIAL SCIENCE SUBMISSIONS TO PSYCHOLOGY JOURNALS The 25,000 Mile Spherical Earth Brief Description The ancient Greeks noted that there were problems with the Persian notion of a box Earth (in which the sky was assumed to Address correspondence to David Trafimow, Department of Psychology, MSC 3452, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001; e-mail: dtrafimo@nmsu.edu. PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Volume 4—Number 1 65 Copyright r 2009 Association for Psychological Science extend down to the sides of a flat Earth to keep the seas from pouring out). For example, what kept the box from falling? One could, of course, argue that the box was held up by pillars, but in that case what are the pillars standing on? Clearly, one can go on in this direction ad infinitum. Worse yet, why do objects fall in the direction they do and not in other directions? A way to circumvent the problems of infinite regression and falling objects was to conclude that the Earth was spherical and define ‘‘down’’ as in the direction of the center of the sphere (e.g., Aristotle). Given this realization, it became clear how to determine the circumference of the Earth. Eratosthenes and his associate placed sticks in the ground at Syene and at Alexandria (500 miles north of Syene) during the summer solstice when the sun was nearly directly overhead at Syene, but not at Alexandria. The sun obviously did not cast much of a shadow in Syene, but it did in Alexandria. By measuring the angle of the shadow in Alexandria and using geometry, Eratosthenes was able to calculate that the Earth was approximately 25,000 miles in circumference (a recent determination, around the equator, suggests it is a little over 24,902 miles). Imagine that Eratosthenes had submitted a manuscript to a psychology journal with the argument that the Earth’s circumference is 25,000