SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW: A CASE STUDY FROM LOCAL AND GLOBAL ANALYSES

Abstract

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.