The Three AREs: How Authors, Reviewers, and Editors Can Better Address Alternative Explanations in Scholarly Research

Abstract Authors of good scholarship must address alternative explanations to the one that they have proposed—to resolve debates, to entertain competing hypotheses, and ultimately, to cumulate knowledge. Authors approach this task proactively, as well as reactively. Indeed, during the peer-review process, reviewers and journal editors frequently identify alternative explanations that the author did not address and then set a hurdle; they demand that the author adequately address the identified alternatives for the publication process to proceed. This raises a question that, to our knowledge, no discipline has thoroughly discussed. What is the proper role of alternative explanations in the peer-review process? We argue that the peer-review process often (unnecessarily) sets too high an “alternative explanations hurdle.” We first lay out the philosophical, scope, and practical considerations that lead us to this conclusion. Then, to begin a discussion about adjusting the hurdle’s height going forward, we propose a set of separate guidelines—the Three AREs—for authors, reviewers, and editors. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the consequences of “alternative explanation gatekeeping.” Our goal is ultimately not to eliminate the author’s responsibility to address alternative explanations, but rather to encourage the peer-review process to make more reasonable demands of submitting authors.