This is an early paper by Stephen Ceci, and illustrates the approach Ceci takes of challenging the assumptions that other psychologists assume to be true. This

This is an early paper by Stephen Ceci, and illustrates the approach Ceci takes of challenging the assumptions that other psychologists assume to be true. This is why I love reading books and articles by Ceci. His Web-based CV http://far.human.cornell.edu/FAR/uploads/webcv/sjc9_webcv.pdf http://far.human.cornell.edu/FAR/uploads/webcv/sjc9_webcv.pd... lists his extensive publications (you hope that most of those got better peer review after his 1982 paper than psychology papers used to). Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Stephen+Ceci&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C24&as_sdtp= http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Stephen+Ceci&#... helpfully lists some papers by Ceci for which there are free full-text versions that you or I can download for our learning and reading pleasure. From Jelte Wicherts (another psychologist skeptical about peer review in psychology) writing in Frontiers of Computational Neuroscience (an open-access journal) comes a much more recent set of general suggestions Jelte M. Wicherts, Rogier A. Kievit, Marjan Bakker and Denny Borsboom. Letting the daylight in: reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Front. Comput. Neurosci., 03 April 2012 doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00020 http://www.frontiersin.org/Computational_Neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2012.00020/full http://www.frontiersin.org/Computational_Neuroscience/10.338... on how to make the peer-review process in scientific publishing more reliable. Wicherts does a lot of research on this issue to try to reduce the number of dubious publications in his main discipline, the psychology of human intelligence. "With the emergence of online publishing, opportunities to maximize transparency of scientific research have grown considerably. However, these possibilities are still only marginally used. We argue for the implementation of (1) peer-reviewed peer review, (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and (3) online data publication. First, peer-reviewed peer review entails a community-wide review system in which reviews are published online and rated by peers. This ensures accountability of reviewers, thereby increasing academic quality of reviews. Second, reviewers who write many highly regarded reviews may move to higher editorial positions. Third, online publication of data ensures the possibility of independent verification of inferential claims in published papers. This counters statistical errors and overly positive reporting of statistical results. We illustrate the benefits of these strategies by discussing an example in which the classical publication system has gone awry, namely controversial IQ research. We argue that this case would have likely been avoided using more transparent publication practices. We argue that the proposed system leads to better reviews, meritocratic editorial hierarchies, and a higher degree of replicability of statistical analyses."