Peer Review

• State x4 of the processes

  • Other psychologists in same area of expertise check research report before deciding if can be published. Also looks at research proposals as well as final research.
  • Independent scrutiny by other psychologists in similar field
  • Work considered in terms of its validity, significance, originality
  • Assessment of appropriateness of methods/designs used
• State other x4 processes

  • Reviewer can accept manuscript as is, accept with revisions, suggests author makes revisions and re-submits OR rejects without possibility of re-submission.
  • Editor of journal makes final decision to accept OR reject research report based on reviewers comments/recommendations.
  • Research proposals submitted to panel & assessed for merit.
  • Peers also rate universities.
• Explain the x3 purposes

  • To ensure quality and relevance of research e.g. methodology, data analysis
  • To ensure accuracy of findings
  • To evaluate proposed designs (in terms of aims, quality and value of the research) for research findings.
• (AO3) Strength - benefit

  Point: Acts as validation process, ensuring research is accurate and credible before publication.

  
  

  Evidence: This increases prestige of the researcher and strengthens discipline of psychology. Also protects society by ensuring social policies are based on reliable research. E.g. 11+ exam were based on flawed research, which peer review could have prevented.

  
  

  Evaluation: Additionally, experts can compare the content with their own knowledge and offer useful suggestions, improving the quality of the study. This enhances the research's validity and reliability.
• (AO3) Limitation

  Point: Relies on the professionalism of the psychologist, who may be in direct competition with the researcher, leading to harsh/biased feedback.

  
  

  Evidence: Its also slow & time consuming, wasting academic time and delaying useful research. Smyth supports this, stating that peer review is often unhelpful, biased and fails to detect fraudulent data.

  
  

  Evaluate: Problematic as it can prevent important research from being published or delay findings that could benefit society. Also questions the credibility of the process if fraudulent research is overlooked.