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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI.FishbeinM.
(1980).
Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2.
BakanD.
(1966).
The test of significance in psychological research.
Psychological Bulletin,
66,
423–437.
3.
CarverR.P.
(1993).
The case against statistical significance testing, revisited.
Journal of Experimental Education,
61,
287–292.
4.
CohenJ.
(1994).
The earth is round (p < .05).
American Psychologist,
49,
997–1003.
5.
EinsteinA.
(1961).
Relativity: The special and the general theory
(Robert W. Lawson, Trans.). New York: Crown Publishers.
6.
FishbeinM.AjzenI.
(1975).
Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7.
FreudS.BreuerJ.
(1895).
Studies on hysteria (Studien über Hysterie)
(N. Luckhurst, Trans.). New York: Penguin Group.
8.
HawkingS.
(2001).
The universe in a nutshell. New York: Bantam Books.
9.
KiddR.F.
(1976).
Manipulation checks: Advantage or disadvantage.
Representative Research in Social Psychology,
7,
160–165.
10.
LakatosI.
(1978).
The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers, Volume 1
(J. Worrall & G. Currie, Eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
PerdueB.C.SummersJ.O.
(1986).
Checking the success of manipulations in marketing experiments.
Journal of Marketing Research,
23,
317–326.
12.
PopperK.
(1959).
Logik der Forschung
[The logic of scientific discovery]. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1934)
13.
RozeboomW.W.
(1960).
The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test.
Psychological Bulletin,
57,
416–428.
14.
SawilowskyS.
(2003).
Deconstructing arguments from the case against hypothesis testing.
Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods,
2,
467–474.
15.
SawyerA.G.LynchJ.G.BrinbergD.L.
(1995).
A Bayesian analysis of the information value of manipulation and confounding checks in theory tests.
Journal of Consumer Research,
21,
581–595.
16.
SchmidtF.L.
(1996).
Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for the training of researchers.
Psychological Methods,
1,
115–129.
17.
SchmidtF.L.HunterJ.E.
(1997).
Eight objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. In
HarlowL.MulaikS.A.SteigerJ.H. (Eds.),
What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 37–64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
TrafimowD.
(2003).
Hypothesis testing and theory evaluation at the boundaries: Surprising insights from Bayes's theorem.
Psychological Review,
110,
526–535.
19.
TrafimowD.
(2005).
The ubiquitous Laplacian assumption: Reply to Lee and Wagenmakers.
Psychological Review,
112,
669–674.
20.
TrafimowD.
(2006a).
Multiplicative invalidity and its application to complex correlational models.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,
132,
215–239.
21.
TrafimowD.
(2006b).
Using epistemic ratios to evaluate hypotheses: An imprecision penalty for imprecise hypotheses.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,
132,
431–462.
22.
TrafimowD.
(in press).
The theory of reasoned action: A case study of falsification in psychology.
Theory & Psychology.
23.
TrafimowD.BrownJ.GraceK.ThompsonL.SheeranP.
(2002).
The relative influence of attitudes and subjective norms from childhood to adolescence: Between-participants and within-participants analyses.
American Journal of Psychology,
115,
395–414.
24.
TrafimowD.SheeranP.
(1998).
Some tests of the distinction between cognitive and affective beliefs.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
34,
378–397.
25.
WolfsonR.
(2003).
Simply Einstein: Relativity demystified. New York: W.W. Norton.
