Tolerance in a rigorous science.
Judge each study by its own chosen standards, not by your single favorite rulebook.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Sturmey (1999) wrote a short editorial. It asked journal editors to welcome many kinds of science. The paper said each theory carries its own yardstick. Editors should judge work by that yardstick, not just their favorite one.
No data were collected. No people were tested. It was a call for open-minded peer review.
What they found
The author found that strict rules can block good ideas. When every paper must meet one gold standard, novel work gets rejected. Tolerance lets more views reach readers.
The piece gave no numbers. It simply argued that diversity in methods helps science move forward.
How this fits with other research
Fujiura (2015) picks up the same torch. That paper tells qualitative writers how to show their analytic steps. It keeps the tolerant spirit of Sturmey (1999) but adds concrete advice.
Wine et al. (2025) also push for flexibility. Their survey shows OBM researchers often skip formal consent. They argue the ethics code should bend for low-risk work. This updates Sturmey (1999) by naming real places where rules are too tight.
Johnson (2022) sounds the opposite note. It demands retraction of an old study that fails today’s ethics. This looks like a clash with Sturmey (1999), but it is not. P urges tolerance of method, not tolerance of harm. Johnson urges rejection of work that violates human rights. Both can live together: be open to methods, yet firm on ethics.
Why it matters
Next time you review a manuscript or an RBT’s protocol, pause. Ask what standards the work sets for itself. If it meets those standards and does no harm, recommend acceptance even if it looks different from your own. Save your veto for ethical breaches, not creative designs.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one recent article you disliked. List the standards it set for itself. Check if it met them.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Scientists often evaluate other people's theories by the same standards they apply to their own work; it is as though scientists may believe that these criteria are independent of their own personal priorities and standards. As a result of this probably implicit belief, they sometimes may make less useful judgments than they otherwise might if they were able and willing to evaluate a specific theory at least partly in terms of the standards appropriate to that theory. Journal editors can play an especially constructive role in managing this diversity of standards and opinion.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1999 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.71-284