peer review

• Aim of peer review:

  • to allocate research funding
  • to validate the quality and relevance of research
  • to suggest amendments or improvements
• Anonymity:

  Usually the ‘peer’ doing the reviewing remains anonymous. However, a minority of reviewers may use their anonymity to criticise rival researchers so some journals favour a system of open reviewing whereby names of reviewers are made public.
• Publication bias:

  It is a natural tendency for editors of journals to want to publish significant ‘headline-grabbing’ findings to increase credibility and circulation of their publication. They also prefer to publish positive results.
• Publication bias:

  This can lead to research that does not meet the criteria of positive or ‘headline-grabbing’ may be ignored or disregarded. This can create a false impression of the current state of psychology if journal editors are selective in what they publish.
• Burying groundbreaking research:

  The peer review process may suppress opposition to mainstream theories, wishing to maintain the status quo. Reviewers tend to be particularly critical of research that contradicts their own views.
• Burying groundbreaking research:

  Established scientists are most likely to be chosen as reviewers. As a result, findings that chime with current opinion are more likely to be passed than new and innovative research that challengers the established order. Thus, peer review may have the effect of slowing down the rate of change.