Peer Review

Question 1

What is peer review

Answer 1

The process of assessing scientific work to decide whether it is worthy of publication in an academic journal

Question 2

How is peer review done

Answer 2

• Once a scientist writes up their study, the manuscript is sent to two or three, experts in the same field (so they are peers of the scientist)
• These peers review the quality of the work to decide whether it is good enough to be seen by the rest of the scientific community. E.g. were the IV and DV properly operationalised?
  • The reviewers then make comments on the work and it is returned to the original scientist, who must make any corrections needed. They may decide that the study was not carried out in a scientific way and so should not be published (because the results are invalid) or that some changes need to be made to the way it is written up.
  • The reviewers should be anonymous to reduce bias (but in very small fields it can be possible to work out who they are)

Question 3

Why do we do peer review

Answer 3

• to ensure only quality research is published (therefore valdidty of current scientific knowledge is maintained)
• to allocate funding (universities are rated accordingly to the quality of research they produce, those conducing better research receive more funding for future projects because it is seen as less of a risk for those giving the money
• to guard against fraudulent research (prevents researchers making up their data)

Question 4

Evaluation of per review (3 points)

Answer 4

• ANONYMITY: feedback is anonymous so that reviewers can be honest and there is no bias. However, some academic fields involve only a few researchers so it can become a way of criticising rivals
• PUBLICATION BIAS: journal editors are under pressure to publish findings that found positive results (eg these things DO have a correlation) however finding out things that aren’t related is just important (eg this therapy DOESNT work). This means studies that find negative results are far less likely to be published even though they are just as important
• BURYING GROUND BREAKING RESEARCH: if a reviewer reads an interesting finding by a rival they may be tempted to prevent publication then repeat the study and claim the credit. They may also decide not to publish research that holds a different view top their own. Means if research isn’t published then scientific progression is slowed