Peer Review

Question 1

How is peer review done:

Answer 1

• Once research is complete, researcher sends manuscript for their research to be published in a journal
• The research is then independantly scrutinised by other anomalous psychologists (usually 2 or 3) working in a similar field.
• They conduct an objective review and decide whether it should be published

Question 2

What are reviewers looking for?

Answer 2

• The appropriateness of methodology, e.g the research method, sample
• The importance of the reseach in a wider context (society)
• How original the work is
• Possible improvements to the work

Question 3

State the 5 reasons why we conduct peer reviews:

Answer 3

1. Ensure quality and validity of research
2. Integrity
3. Importance
4. Originality
5. Allocating research funding

Question 4

1. Ensure quality and validity of research:

Answer 4

Reports are assessed for quality and validity.
- Does it include a well-formed hypothesis/hypotheses?
- Appropriateness of the chosen methodology
- Stastical tests used and whether the right ones were used
- Potential errors
- Conclusions drawn - do they make sense?
- Ethics?
Reviewer may suggest ammendments and improvements. All of this is done to increase probability of weakness/ errors being identified - researchers are less objective over their own work

Question 5

2. Integrity

Answer 5

Ensures published research has integrity and has been independantly scrutinised by fellow researchers - report can be taken more seriously by fellow researchers and lay people

Question 6

3. Importance

Answer 6

Judges importance of the research in a wider context - prevents dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, personal views and deliberate fraud

Question 7

4. Originality

Answer 7

Assesses how original the work is/whether it refers to replicant research by other psychologists

Question 8

5. Allocating research funding

Answer 8

• Sometimes reviewers will evaluate proposed research in terms of aims, quality and value of research + decide whether or not to award funding
• May be coordinated by government run funding organisations such as the medical council who are invested in establishing which research is most worthwhile

Question 9

What are the outcomes of a peer review?

Answer 9

Following the review process, reviewers may either
- accept manuscript how it is
- accept it with revisions
- ask the researcher to make revisions and resubmit for review again
- reject without the possibility of resubmission
The editor of the journal makes final decision whether to accept/ reject the research report based on the reviewer’s comments/ recommendations

Question 10

State the four problems with peer review:

Answer 10

1. Publication bias / File Drawer Effect
2. Mistakes
3. Bias against new research
4. Anonymity

Question 11

1. Publication bias / File Drawer Effect

Answer 11

Peer review panels may be biased towards publishing headline grabbing findings and prefer publishing statistically significant results
- research which does not meet these criteria are disregarded

Question 12

2. Mistakes

Answer 12

Peer review panels can still make mistakes + unknowingly fail to detect errors in research

Question 13

3. Bias against new research

Answer 13

If research being reviewed challenges existing dominant research in the field/ research done by those on the peer review panel - bias against it
Research more likely to be rejected despite having merit
Slow down rate of change within specific psychological disciplines

Question 14

4. Anonymity

Answer 14

Reviewer may hide behind anonymity to highly criticise for personal gain bc researchers r in direct competition for limited funding
Some journals prefer an open reviewing system where reviewer’s names are public