evaluation of peer review Flashcards
what is a benefit of peer review
peer review is good in establishing the validity and accuracy of research
what are some criticism of peer review
- anonymity
- publication bias
- burying ground breaking research
why is anonymity a criticism of peer review
It is usual practice that the “peer” doing the reviewing remains anonymous throughout the process this is likely to produce a more honest appraisal
However, a minority of reviewer may use their anonymity as a way of criticising rival researchers who perceive “crossed them” in the past.
This is especially since researchers are in direct competition for limited research funding
For this reason, some journals favour a system of open reviewing whereby the names of the reviewer(s) are made public
why is publication bias a limitation of peer review
it is natural tendency for editors of journals to want to publish significant “headline grabbing” findings to increase the credibility and circulation of their publication. They also prefer to publish positive results
This could mean that research which does not met these criteria is ignored or disregarded.
Ultimately, this creates a false impression of the current state of psychology of journal editors are selective in what they publish
why is buring ground - breaking research a limitation of peer review
The review process may suppress opposition to mainstream theories, wishing to maintain the status quo within particular scientific fields
Reviewers tend to be especially critical of research that contradicts their own view and much more favourable to that which matches it
Established scientists are the ones more likely to be chosen as reviewers, particularly by prestigious journals and publishers
As a result, findings that chime with current opinion are more likely to be passed than new and innovative research that challenges the established order
Thus, peer review may have the effect of slowing down the rate of change within a particular scientific discipline
