Shimp, C. P. (2004).
Scientific peer review: A case study from local and global analyses.
Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
82, 103-116.
The dialog between Staddon (2001, 2004) and Baum (2004) raises general questions
about the nature of scientific peer review. Their dialog displays effects on peer
review of differences of opinion about the relative merits of local and global
analyses. Baum (1995, 1997, 2001, 2002) favors global analyses as a paradigm
different, newer, and better than the local, dynamic, real-time approach that
plays a significant role in Staddon (2001). According to the Kuhnian perspective
(Kuhn, 1996) Baum advocates, we can better understand his review of Staddon
(2001) by considering the implications for it of his commitment to the idea that
a global analysis is a superior scientific paradigm. This commentary examines
some characteristics of local and global analyses, as well as some of their
possible implications for peer review in the context of a reviewer’s belief in
the Kuhnian idea of incommensurability: According to this idea, a reviewer
who either is, or who believes he is, from one paradigm is unlikely, for better
or worse, to understand or perhaps even tolerate work from a different paradigm.
It is recommended that a process be developed to encourage “truth in peer reviewing”
to reduce possible conflicts of interest embedded in the current conception
of scientific peer review.
Key words: scientific peer review, local analyses, global analyses,
molar, molecular, behaviorism