Challenge to Bob

Tue, 19 Mar 96 13:34:10 EST

I have followed parts of the dialogues in recent weeks with very mixed
feelings (after hearing from a friend about what was happening on the
mailbase). I think it is time that I say some things about the "facts" that
keep getting thrown around as "truth." First and foremost, I want to go on
record and state that _I_ NOT Bob Neimeyer was the reviewer of the article
Bill Chambers keeps mentioning. I cannot recall great specifics about the
piece as it was over 10 years ago. I do recall flying with Bill from Calgary
to Dayton after the Banff Conference and, during this trip, he was most upset
with Bob about that article. As he discussed the specifics, I became troubled
as it sounded like something I knew about. I checked my files when I got home
and found that I was the reviewer. As I vaguely recall, the paper was sent to
me because the journal editor (I want to say it was Bob Hogan at JPSP as he
used to do this routinely but I could be in error) wanted a construct theory
viewpoint as well as a more general one. My recollection was that the more
general reviewer also recommended against publication.

I do recall with some specificity my concern about the piece. When editors
would call on me to review articles by construct theorists, I always have a
strong inclination toward acceptance because I believe our stuff needs to be
seen in the more mainstream outlets. Therefore, it is always sad for me when
I have to recommend rejection. I cannot recall the specifics of the reason for
the recommendation (and the rat lab above my office literally sprung a leak a
few years ago and the roof literally fell in on me and ruined some old files so
I can't review my notes). However, any idea that I would squelch something
because I wanted to protect Bob from criticism is ridiculous. I have disagreed
with Bob on several occasions, including aspects of death threat research. I
even have recommended rejection of a couple of Bob's articles over the years.
(He, no doubt, has done the same to me!! [Or maybe will in the future now :)])
I hope that, when I have done that, I have been specific as to the reasons why.
I also hope that I was specific as to the reasons why I recommended rejection
of Bill's paper. Anyway, as I recall, the other reviewer and the editor agreed
with my recommendation with regard to Bill's paper.

Anyway, to sum up, I do not believe one rejected article ruins an adacdemic
career. If so, mine has been ruined many times over!! However, if Bill needs
to be bitter about that particular article, let him direct his anger at me,
not Bob.

Larry Leitner