On the Differing Perspectives of Authors and Editors.

A funny thing happened to the author as he read the November 1979 Contemporary Sociology issue on sociology journals, especially its negative assessment of reviewing process and its outcomes. On the one hand, as the most recently retired editor of Social Psychology Quarterly(SPQ), the author disagrees with the negative conclusions: a surprisingly high proportion of the social scientists who have reviewed SPQ have responded to the requests conscientiously and carefully, and only an editor provided with two, or preferably three, reviews, is ordinarily in a good position to make a wise decision with regard to acceptance, rejection, or revision, though of course there are some dilemmas and undoubtedly some mistakes. On the other hand, reviews of authors own submitted papers often strike him as having missed the main contributions and to have fastened too hastily on unessential or peripheral points a reaction regardless of whether the paper was accepted or rejected. Is there something going on here more than exaggerated regard for one's own work combined with insensitivity to unfairness toward others.