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.
• Main aims of peer review

  1. To allocate research funding
  2. To validate quality and relevance of research
  3. To suggest amendments and improvements
• To allocate research funding

  • Independent peer evaluation also takes place to decide whether or not to award funding for a proposed research project.
  • This may be co-ordinated by government-run funding organisations, such as Medical research council, who have vested interest in establishing which research projects are most worthwhile.
• To validate quality and relevance of research

  • All elements of research are assessed for quality and accuracy.
  • The formulation of hypothesis, the methodology chosen, statistical tests used and conclusions drawn.
• To suggest amendments and improvements

  • Reviewers may suggest minor revisions of the work thereby improve the report.
  • In extreme circumstances they may conclude that the work is inappropriate for publication and should be withdrawn.
• Evaluation points

  • Anonymity
  • Publication bias
  • Burying groundbreaking research
• Anonymity

  • It is usual practice that the peer doing reviewing remains anonymous throughout the process as this is likely to produce honest appraisal.
  • However a minority of reviewers may use anonymity as a way of criticising rival researchers.
  • This is made more likely by the fact that many researchers are in direct competitions for limited research funding.
  • For this reason, some journals favour an open reviewing system whereby names of reviewers are made public.
• Publication bias

  • It is a natural tendency for editors of journals to publish significant ‘headline’ findings, to increase credibility and circulation of their publication.
  • They also prefer to publish positive results (file drawer problem)
  • This means that research which does not meet these criteria is ignored or disregarded.
  • This creates a false impression of current psychology if journal editors are selective in what they publish.
• Burying groundbreaking research

  • Peer review process may suppress opposition to mainstream theories, wishing to maintain status quo within a particular scientific field.
  • Reviewers tend to be especially critical of research that contradicts their own view and more favourable those which match it.
  • Established scientists are more likely to be chosen as reviewers. As a result findings that chime with current opinion are more likely to be passed than new, innovative research that challenges established order.
  • Thus peer review may slow down rate of change within a particular scientific field.