Role of scientific community in validating new knowledge

• Peer review


  This is the practice of using independent experts to assess the quality and validity of scientific research and academic reports.

  It is an essential part of judging the scientific quality of psychological research before it is published.

  It is in the interest of all scientists that their work is scrutinised and any flawed work is detected and results of such research ignored
• Scientific process


  A process which enables humans to get closer to understanding how the world, and the people in it, function
• Many elements of the scientific process have evolved over the years to ensure that we uncover facts that can be relied on to build bridges, treat disease, raise psychologically healthy children, etc.
• Peer review


  The assessment of scientific work by others who are experts in the same field (i.e. peers)
• Peer review


  • Ensures that any research conducted and published is of high quality
  • Usually there are a number of reviewers for each application/article assessment
  • Their task is to report on the quality of the research and then their views are considered by a peer review panel
• Purposes of peer review

  • Allocation of research funding
  • Publication of research in academic journals and books
  • Assessing the research rating of university departments
• Allocation of research funding

  Research is paid for by various government and charitable bodies. The overall budget for science in the year 2015-2016 was set at £5.8 billion. The organisations spending this money have a duty to spend it responsibly. Therefore, public bodies such as the Medical Research Council require reviews to enable them to decide which research is likely to be worthwhile.
• Publication of research in academic journals and books

  Scientific or academic journals provide scientists with the opportunity to share the results of their research. The peer review process has only been used in such journals since the middle of the 20th century as a means of preventing incorrect or faulty data entering the public domain. Prior to the idea of peer review, research was simply published and it was assumed that the burden of proof lay with opponents of any new ideas.
• Assessing the research rating of university departments

  All university science departments are expected to conduct research and this is assessed in terms of quality (Research Excellence Framework, REF). Future funding for the department depends on receiving good ratings from the REF peer review.
• The sheer volume and pace of information available on the internet means that new solutions are needed in order to maintain the quality of information.
• Scientific information is available in numerous online blogs, online journals and, of course, Wikipedia.
• Wisdom of crowds approach on the internet

  Readers decide whether information is valid or not, and post comments and/or edit entries accordingly.
• On the internet, 'peer' is coming to mean 'everyone' - a more egalitarian system but possibly at a cost of quality.
• Peer review


  A process where scientific research is checked by other experts in the same field before it is published
• Peer review


  • It establishes the validity of scientific research
  • It prevents mere opinion and speculation from being presented as fact
• Criticisms of peer review

  • Difficulty finding an appropriate expert reviewer
  • Anonymity of reviewers can lead to bias
  • Publication bias towards positive results
  • Preference for research that supports existing theory
  • Cannot deal with already published fraudulent or poor research
• Peer-reviewed research that was subsequently debunked continued to be used in a debate in parliament
• The fact that members of parliament have such little critical understanding of the process of science emphasises the need for increased vigilance by scientists of the quality of their work