A note from the editor: Acknowledgements and appreciation to reviewers

Abstract

leagues who, during 1992-1993, thoughtfully evaluated submitted manuscripts. These referees have devoted a substantial amount of their time to an activity for which they receive no personal recognition or reward. Yet their activity is crucial to the success of both the journal and the discipline. As contemporary research in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science has illustrated the traditional view of how science is done according to a set of rational procedures, the scientific method, is largely a myth. If science were done in this fashion there would be much higher levels of agreement on the value of contributions to frontier science. But in all fields, the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, we find dissensus on the adequacy of new contributions. This adequacy cannot be judged according to an abstract set of principles. Rather it must be determined by a community of interacting scientists who negotiate what is to be held important and true. This is where the journal referees play a crucial role. By reading new manuscripts and determining whether they are of interest to other scholars in the field and not flawed by serious errors they act as gatekeepers. Authors knowing that their contributions will have to be evaluated in this way try to anticipate possible criticisms. Referees point out to authors possible flaws in their work that they had not considered. Perhaps most importantly, referees suggest ways for the authors to improve the credibility of their arguments so that the new contributions will have a greater chance of making some impact on the field. Of course, given that there are low levels of consensus on research frontier knowledge, it is not surprising that there is frequently substantial disagreement among referees of the same article. In an attempt to obtain consensus we sometimes have as many as four or five referees review an article. Nonetheless not infrequently these referees disagree and the editor will have to make a decision based upon conflicting reviews. Given the