I see hundreds of reviews each year, mostly for this Journal, but also for other journals. I was very surprised to read a reviewer's comment in another top social science journal—one that is familiar to many of our authors and reviewers. The reviewer's comment was in response to a theory submission: “A regular issue of ___ is generally not an appropriate outlet for such work.” Interesting…and this comment raises some questions: Are scientific journals solely for original empirical works? Would a reviewer—or an editor—be justified in excluding a topical area? Probably not. Why then would theory be treated as a topic for exclusion? Although some reviewers may not think that theoretical articles should be published in scientific journals, I want to make it eminently clear that theoretical works are welcome at the Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. Moreover, there are special reasons to encourage theoretical works in journals—not just for anthologies or “theory journals” but for all top scientific journals. If a journal claims to be a venue for science, then I believe it also needs to be willing to publish papers that are primarily about one or more scientific theories. Most scientific methods entail testing hypotheses about the relationships between variables. Hypotheses do not come out of thin air but are typically generated from either previous research or theories. Hypothesis generation from prior research is a wholly acceptable means of advancing scientific inquiry, but overreliance on it can lead to a science of the commonplace. Research can easily evolve into tiny extensions of a basic research question. Incremental science is in many respects good for replication, but it is usually less innovative. Generating hypotheses from a theory, on the other hand, may lead to a more diffuse set of research questions than would result from tests of hypotheses generated from prior research alone. In this sense, theory can enhance scientific innovation. Good theory, moreover, incorporates empirical generalizations; thus, it will also be more efficient for hypothesis formulation because it integrates both past findings and reasoned statements about such findings. Theoretical manuscripts are welcome here—works that incorporate theory with empirical tests and those that seek to extend or develop a theory. Essays do not ipso facto constitute a theoretical work. Neither do manuscripts that make a reasoned argument on a policy issue. Theoretical papers should be explicit in developing or extending one or more theories; they should link concepts, hypotheses, and empirical generalizations in a logical way. Reports of original research are the building blocks of science—always have been, always will be. But there is a need to assemble the blocks into a meaningful structure. Theory, like an architectural design, helps us see how the stones or blocks might be related to one another to create something meaningful and enduring. One should not conclude that theory is permanent and a panacea for the social scientific study of aging. Rather, it is expected that theories will be revised in response to specific tests of falsification and new empirical generalizations. Otherwise, “theories” are more like ideologies for social discussions of aging. Theories that are useful are also stated in a straightforward manner. Jargon does not demonstrate theoretical sophistication, neither does academic mysticism. Cogent writing with conceptual precision will win the day. Readers of this Journal may assume that there is a bias against publishing theoretical works. I know that my predecessor, Chuck Longino, went to great lengths to encourage theory submissions—and I am following his lead. At the same time, editors know very well that articles on a specific topic or using an approach will never be published unless they are first submitted for review. Theoretical manuscripts are welcome here—works that incorporate theory with empirical tests and those that seek to extend or develop a theory.