To The Editor:

J. Scott Armstrong is right on target with his criticism of the peer review process employed by most refereed journals ("We Need to Rethink the Editorial Role of Peer Reviewers," October 25). Instead of encouraging the dissemination of innovative ideas and potentially promising lines of inquiry, the peer review process often acts as a filter which helps to ensure that what ultimately gets published pays appropriate homage to the reigning ideology.

In the student affairs profession, for example, the 'student development' model tends to be disproportionately represented in many influential journals, including The Journal of College Student Development and The College Student Affairs Journal. A manuscript which even hints at criticism of this particular paradigm is often considered 'suspect' and has a much greater chance of being rejected. The stated reason for such rejection almost always involves technical matters and/or issues of 'quality.' The real reason, I am convinced, involves something more sinister-- something Armstrong describes quite accurately.

In far too many instances, thought-provoking and cutting-edge articles never see the light of day because peer reviewers, who are often hand-selected by the editor and/or the editorial board of the journal, tend to share similar theoretical orientations. Whenever an attempt is made to point this out, however, journal advocates typically tend to either ignore such legitimate criticism or dismiss it as being 'uninformed.'

When will we learn that our most original and creative thinking seldom comes from those who are desperately struggling to uphold the prevailing orthodoxy?