Peer Review

• peer review


  the practice of using independent experts to assess the quality and validity of scientific research and academic reports
• 3 main purposes of peer review


  -allocation of research funding

  -validate the quality and relevance of the research

  -suggest amendments or improvements
• allocation of research funding


  research is paid for by various government and charitable bodies- these organisations have a duty to spend money responsibly and on research projects that are worthwhile
• validate the quality and relevance of research

  all elements of research are assessed for quality and accuracy- formulation of hypotheses, methodology chosen, statistical tests used and the conclusions drawn
• suggesting amendments or improvements


  reviews may suggest minor revisions of the work and thereby improve the work, in extreme cases they may suggest the work is inappropriate for publication and should be withdrawn
• strengths of peer review


  ensures that research is of high quality
• ensures that research is of high quality


  -research is scrutinised by researchers in the same field which increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified and addressed

  -it helps to prevent the publication of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations and deliberate fraud

  - this whole process ensures that published research is taken seriously
• limitations of peer review


  -anonymity

  -publication bias

  - preserving the status quo
• anonymity


  peer reviewers may have their identities kept secret allowing them to be honest and objective → can have the opposite effect. reviewers may use their anonymity as a way of criticising rival researchers. researchers are also in direct competition for limited research funding and as a result some journals favour a system of open reviewing whereby both author and reviewer know eachother's identity
• publication bias


  journals tend to publish positive results and 'headline grabbing' findings, possibly because editors want research that has important implications in order to increase the standing of their journal. this could mean that research which does not meet these criteria is ignored

  this leads to a bias in published research that leads to a misconception of the true facts in psychology
• preserving the status quo


  the peer review process may suppress opposition to mainstream theories, wishing to maintain the status quo within particular scientific fields. reviewers tend to be critical of research that contradicts their own view and much more favourable to that which matches it. findings that chime with current opinion are more likely to be passed than new and innovative research that challenges the established order.

  peer review may slow down the rate of change within a particular scientific discipline