Maarten - with regard to anonymous peer review being ludicrous, it DOES also apply in logic, mathematics and physics. These academics are not above academic politics and conflicts of interest. No matter how few of them there are - they should be prepared to stand up and be accountable for their reviews. With regard to 'social science' not being a science, yes there is an irony. But often sociological theories cannot (yet, and maybe never) be tested. Some can. But more stuff cannot. Psychology has pretty much the same situation, again, depending on branches etc. Yes I am someone who attempts to use coherence, comprehensiveness and empirical adequacy in my own work. That makes me an empiricist sociologist and yes, I guess in many ways I do find Wright Mills 'sociological imagination' useful. But I'm also a feminist methodologist as well. My work lately has been to critique science when bad, that makes me an empiricist feminist sociologist! There's all sorts of methodological debates as, I'm sure you know, about this in social science (and that includes psychology, at least for this discussion). Which is good. Psychiatrists should do more of that.