| Abstract: | Like everyone else, scientists can and do see pronounced contingencies in certain situations where almost no association is actually present. In situations where clear association is expected, this perception of illusory contingency can be especially strong. Journal review procedures seem to be a textbook example of one such situation. In this article, the author proposes to highlight a brief example of illusory reliability in journal reviewing, and then to mention the growing literature which justifies what he has said above. He believes this literature can offer us a means for understanding and avoiding similar illusions in the future. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
