Are Social Scientists Harder on Their Colleagues Than Physical Scientists Were on Theirs in the Past? Commentary on...

Trafimow and Rice (2009; this issue) have written a thought-provoking article that addresses an important issue in a creative, informative, and engaging way. In a series of vignettes, the authors imagine how several of the better known developments of science might have fared if the manuscripts in which they were first described had been assessed according to the standards and predilections of current reviewers of manuscripts in the social sciences. In this commentary, I note points made by Trafimow and Rice with which I agree, mention some questions that the article raises that are important in my view, challenge the authors' assumption that contemporary social scientists generally treat the ideas of their colleagues more harshly than past physical scientists treated those of theirs, and express an opinion about the merits of the peer-review system as it currently functions in the social sciences. Although I acknowledge that the current system is far from perfect, I argue that it does a passably good job and question whether the reviews it produces are generally too harsh.