PEER REVEIWING

• Peer review


  An independent assessment carried out before the research is published by other experts
• Peer review


  • Helps to determine if the research can be deemed scientifically acceptable
  • Completed independently and usually anonymously
• Aims of peer reviews

  • To assess the appropriateness of the research
  • To check the researches validity
  • To judge the significance of the research
  • To check the research is original
  • To suggest or provide recommendations
• Peer Review Process


  1. Usually several experts will review the research

  2. The experts will review the research and suggest edits or identify issues with the research

  3. Accept the work unconditionally

  4. Accept the work as long as the researcher makes certain improvement

  5. Reject the work, but suggest alterations for re-submission

  6. Reject the work outright
• Types of peer review

  • Open Review
  • Single-blind Review
  • Double-blind Review
• Open Review


  The researchers and reviewers are known to each other, this type of review is believed to reduce plagiarism, however, there is the concern criticisms are watered down, either due to politeness or worried about the retribution the reviewer may face
• Single-blind Review


  The researchers name is not released to the reviewer. With it being anonymously reviewed, it is hoped it will it will be an unbiased review, however, this is often not the case and the reviewer can sometimes hide behind their anonymity and be undeservedly harsh
• Double-blind Review


  Both the researcher and the reviewer are anonymous to each other, this will mean the review is free from bias, however, often the researcher is identifiable by their writing and research style
• Criticisms of Peer Review

  • Peer reviews are not unbiased
  • Plagiarism
  • Peer review takes a lot of time and is a slow process
• Peer reviews are not unbiased, this is because the research world is relatively small and so researchers and research is known by most within that social world. Another reason it is often not unbiased, is the idea that researchers are funded by different organisations who want certain research deemed acceptable and push for that to happen
• Reviewers have been accused of plagiarism and also, for not accepting work, so that there own work can be published first
• It is also felt the ability to publish research is in the control of the elites and that they do not like change or revolutionary ideas, so, they reject research which is not agreed with
• Peer review takes a lot of time and is a slow process, often taking months and sometimes years to complete