peer review

• peer review

  the way psychological findings are shared with other scientists and held up for scrutiny. it ensures what is being published into journals maintains a high standard and essentially gives a seal of approval to research
• the peer review process

  1. research paper submitted to journal
  2. editor sends it to other experts
  3. they critically appraise all aspects of the study
  4. return it with their recommendations as to whether work is acceptable quality
  5. if required researchers will revise their work and resubmit
  6. if successful, work is published and high standards are maintained
• peer review issues - :( can act to maintain the status quo

  • prevents potentially revolutionary research from being published
  • science is conservative - resistant to large changes in opinion
  • if results of a study do not fit with accepted existing knowledge, it can be rejected
• peer review issues - :( bias

  • objective bias - reviewer might strongly support an opposing view, can provide biased opinion (many belive its not possible to separate reviewer from their values) the peer review work is meant to be anonymous but the research world is very small + cloak of anonymity can be used to settle old scores / kill of research hat could threaten their own chances of getting funding. or, may look favorably towards someone in their social circle
  • institution bias - research from prestigious unis are favored
  • gender bias - male researchers seem to be favored
• peer review issues - :( the file drawer problem

  • bias towards publishing studies with positive results (those supporting hypothesis)
  • but negative findings are important too if we want to achieve balanced view of research
  • negative findings tend to be rejected or are never submitted for application
  • for every study showing postitive findings, there could be 100s with negative findings stuffed in uni filing cabinets - understanding of a subject becomes distorted
• peer review :)

  • despite problems, without peer reviews we would never know if someones claims were fact or fiction
  • ensuring anyone picking up a psychological research paper can be confident the info is valid and reliable
• reports - abstract (2)

  • what - brief summary of aims, methods, results and conclusion
  • why - saves time reading report in its entirety, condenses and gives idea if you want to read the rest of the report
• reports - intro (3)

  • what - tells us why study is being carried, puts into context, coverage of background research, aims and hypotheses
  • why - puts into context
• reports - method (4)

  • what - very detailed on design, variables, ethics, material and procedure
  • why - allows another researcher to replicate it
• reports - results (5)

  • what - summary of all data analysis - supporting / rejecting hypothesis on the basis of this
  • why - helps identify trends / the final conclusion of the study
• reports - discussion (6)

  • what - limitations discussed, how it can be improved if replicated, relating to hypotheses
  • why - ensures a more accurate / smoothly run experiment when people replicate
• reports - references (7)

  • what - contains details of all the research covered (title of book, where it was published, edition / page number)
  • why - to give credit to other researchers and their work that you have used
• reports - appendices (8)

  • what - raw data / calculations, instructions, consent form, debriefing sheet
  • why - so someone can replicate the study, check your analysis, see your consent forms