peer review

• peer review 


  Before going to publication, a research report is sent other psychologists who are knowledgeable in the research topic for them to review the study, and check for any problems
• introduction


  1. Is the research appropriate for their study?​

  2. Is the research suggested original and interesting?​

  3. Is the current state of the area of research, accurately represented?​

  4. What specific questions does the study address?​
• approach/method


  • . Were appropriate controls used?​

  2. Was is ethical?​

  3. Can you think of a better way to address the research question?​
• results


  1. Do the figures/tables/data used contribute to the paper or are they useless?​

  2. Are the authors interpretations of the results backed up by the data?​

  3. Are the statistical analyses appropriate?
• the peer reviewer must decide to:


  • Accept the paper ​
  • Reject the paper ​
  • Suggest amendments
• strengths of peer review 


  • Ensures that only research with sound methodology is passed, stopping poor research being accepted as a fact by the public, meaning that only valid research is accessed by the public.
  • Issues of bias can be overcome by using a double-blind peer review. This is when both the reviewer and the author are anonymous, and therefore no extra information is provided which could influence their judgement.​
• weaknesses of peer review 


  • Bias – reviewer may strongly support an opposing view, less likely to provide an unbiased opinion of the work. The reviewer is more likely to look favourably upon research by someone within their social circle. Other forms of bias include Institution bias and Gender Bias male researchers favoured)
  • Can be hard to find a suitable expert
  • Anonymity. Researcher is not supposed to know the identity of the peer reviewer, however this can allow the peer reviewer to abuse their power and use their peer review to manipulate the researcher so can lack objectivity.