peer review

• peer review 


  • the assessment of scientific work by others who are specialists in the same field to ensure that any research intended for publication is of high quality. These experts consider the research in terms of its validity, significance and originality
• role of peer review

  • the aim of science is to produce a body of knowledge through carrying out research. this knowledge is then passed on to the scientific community and to the wider public
  • in psychology research findings are publicised through conferences, textbooks but most often via academic journals
  • before it can be published in the journals the research must go through the process of peer review
• importance of peer review

  • may be difficult for researchers to spot mistakes in their own work. other 'experts' are more objective and likely to spot weaknesses and address them
  • prevents distribution of irrelevant findings, unjustified claims (so scientist must be honest) unacceptable interpretations and deliberate fraud therefore improving quality of the research.
  • helps validate conclusions so that published work becomes more trustworthy
• aims of peer review

  • to allocate research funding: e.g independent peer evaluation also takes place to decide whether or not to award funding for a proposed research project
  • to validate the quality + relevance of research: all elements of research are assessed for quality and accuracy
  • to suggest amendments or improvements: reviewers may suggest minor revisions of the work + thereby improve the report or may conclude that the work is inappropriate and should be withdrawn
• benefit of peer review - establishes validity + accuracy of research
• weaknesses/ criticisms

  anonymity -

  • 'peer' doing the reviewing remains anonymous throughout the process as it is more likely to produce a more honest appraisal
  • minority of reviewers use anonymity to criticise rival researchers. this is made more likely as many researchers are in direct competition for limited research funding
  • some journals favour open reviewing where the names of the reviewers are made public
• publication bias -

  • editors of journals may want to publish significant headline grabbing findings to increase credibility and circulation of publication
  • they also prefer to publish positive results (file drawer problem)
  • this means that research that do not meet these criteria are ignored creating a false impression of the current state of psychology
• burying groundbreaking research -

  • the peer review process may suppress opposition to mainstream theories to maintain status quo within particular scientific fields
  • reviewers tend to be critical with research that contradicts their own view
  • established scientists are usually selected for peer review, so findings that agree with current opinions are likely to be passed on
  • therefore peer reviews have the effect of slowing down the rate of change within a particular scientific discipline