7.2.12 Peer Review

Peer Review

Peer Review

Evaluation

The assessment of scientific work by others who are specialists in the same field ensures that any research intended for publication is of high quality. Role of peer review: It is important because it provides a way of checking the validity of the research and judging not only the conclusion of the study but also the research method and data Peers can assess whether the work is original and if it refers to other relevant research results in a wider context They can also make a recommendation as to whether the research paper can be published as it is or if it should be revised or rejected Peer review helps to make sure that any paper published in a journal has integrity to be taken seriously by other researchers and members of the general public It makes sure that researchers follow the same conventions when writing up research so all papers are published in the same format.

Anonymity – some reviewers may use anonymity as a way of criticising rival researchers. Some journals prefer open reviewing with public names due to this. Researchers can remain anonymous as this is likely to produce a more honest appraisal. Publication bias – editors want to publish significant headlines to increase the credibility of their publication. Prefer to publish positive results. This means research not meeting this criterion is ignored. Burying ground-breaking research – reviewers tend to be critical of research contradicting their views and being more favourable to those supporting it. Findings resulting from current opinions are more likely to be published than those not, slowing down the rate of change in some scientific places.

Process

• Other psychologists check the research report before deciding whether it could be published
• independent scrutiny by other psychologists working in a similar field
• work is considered in terms of its validity, significance and originality
• assessment of the appropriateness of the methods and designs used
• the reviewer can accept the manuscript as it is, accept with revisions, suggest the author makes revisions and re-submit or reject without the possibility of re-submission
• editor makes the final decision whether to accept or reject the research report based on the reviewers' comments/recommendations
• research proposals are submitted to the panel and assessed for merit.

Purposes

• to ensure the quality and relevance of research, eg. methodology, data analysis etc

• to ensure the accuracy of the findings

• to evaluate proposed designs (in terms of aims, quality and value of the research) for research funding.

• In peer review, research reports are checked in terms of suitability for publication, appropriateness of the theoretical background, methodology, statistics and conclusions. Discussion is likely to focus on

• The work is methodologically sound, and valid and does not involve e.g. plagiarism of other people's research

• The findings are novel, interesting and relevant, and add to the knowledge of a particular research area

• The authors are not making unjustified claims about the importance of their findings

• Peer review ensures research is reviewed by fellow experts

• Peer review maintains the standards of published work and allows University research departments to be rated and funded in terms of their quality

• It helps to ensure that poor-quality work is not published in reputable journals

• Bias – it has been established that a publication bias occurs towards prestigious researchers and research departments

• Bias towards positive findings - negative findings and replications are rarely published, though these can be critical in establishing whether important findings are reliable

• Bias in favour of 'established' research areas – novel or unusual research is hard to publish

• Time-consuming and expensive – peer review can take months, or in some cases where revisions are necessary, years, so delaying publication of important findings

• As reviewers are usually working in the same field as the submitted work and competing for limited research funds, there is a temptation to delay or even prevent the publication of competing research

• Peer review sometimes fails to prevent scientific fraud