What If Social Scientists Had Reviewed Great Scientific Works of the Past?

One might question whether the great works in the history of science would get good reviews if subjected to the type of reviewing process to which psychologists are forced to submit their manuscripts. In some ways, behavioral scientists are too critical, and in other ways they are insufficiently so. To explore these issues, we imagine that great works from the history of nonsocial sciences were submitted for review in behavioral science journals and present simulated editor letters summarizing the comments of behavioral science reviewers. The philosophical underpinnings and justifications of the arguments are discussed, and recommendations for improved reviewing are offered.