Gatekeepers of Psychology: Evaluation of Peer Review by Case History

This book is a wake-up call for those who contend that the peer review system for journal publications works. It supports the current groundswell of dissatisfaction with peer review. Harcum and Rosen challenge the notion of simple biases of researchers and argue that many reviews are simply incompetent. The biases against new scientific approaches and philosophies are exacerbated if proposed by unknown researchers or if contrary to the established research stars. The authors also destroy the myth of the appeal system as a forum whereby peers can debate scientific issues.

The primary purpose of this work is to raise the consciousness of the scientific community, particularly psychologists, about serious flaws in peer review. The authors demonstrate in a dramatic way how poor the system really is, and propose a critical change--the institution of a viable system for appeals.