Abstract
Recent findings indicate that many adults in the United States are skeptical regarding scientific evidence. Some of this skepticism is rooted in political partisanship, but distrust of research findings exists on both ends of the political spectrum. One way to begin to restore faith in the validity and utility of scientific research is to take a closer look at the effectiveness of the manuscript-evaluation process. To that end, this article examines current findings regarding the strengths and limitations of manuscript review and identifies ways that the process can be improved. To move toward a more evidence-based framework, we must take into account two psychological dynamics that shape the review process. First, manuscript review is what is known in psychology as a “signal-detection task”: Reviewers and editors attempt to distinguish signals (publishable manuscripts) from noise (manuscripts that do not warrant publication). Second, manuscript review involves a complex social interaction among authors, reviewers, and editors, each of whom brings particular goals to the endeavor and each of whom must communicate with multiple audiences simultaneously to achieve those goals. The practical implications of the findings in this area are discussed, and preliminary steps for moving toward a more evidence-based approach to manuscript review are outlined.