Abstract
Is the peer review system in academic journals working properly? We considered this question in its details by examining two psychological papers rejected and their review reports in order to find out the elements of the problem and manage to get out of them. One of the two papers constructs a logical and formal discussion to deduce the existence of immaterial soul independent of the brain. The other proposes a renewal of the scheme of psychotherapy and the method of case study, through a therapeutic case report in a relatively special environment of public education. The two studies with contrastive characters have in common a feature of novelty in their research attitudes. Examining the review reports, we found little common advisory instruction and no appropriate reason of rejection unless written with misunderstandings. The paper on psychotherapy received a considerable number of review reports with no reason of the rejection and apparent inability of reviewers in understanding the contents. The latter was often counted as the reason of dismissal. In a case of repeated review, the reviewers were inclined to regard the previous reviews as invincible and to put them as premisses of consideration, paying no attention to rebuttals of the author. In other words, the general tendency of the reviews was authoritarianism with faultfindings on the ground of caprice. These results strongly suggest that the academic review system cannot produce its desirable functions, at least in the sphere of psychology. They also make us suspicious about the quality and appropriateness of professors and research/education personnel in universities and post-graduate schools, so far as psychology and the studies of mind are concerned. The problems should be solved through free acceptance of all academic papers in principle and their public evaluations including reviews of the review reports.
