Peer Review

Question 1

What is peer review?

Answer 1

the practice of using independent experts to assess the quality and validity of scientific research and academic reports

Question 2

What are the three main purposes of peer review?

Answer 2

1. allocation of research funding
2. validate the quality and relevance of research
3. suggest amendments or improvements

Question 3

what is ‘allocation of research funding’?

Answer 3

research is paid for by various government and charitable bodies. these organisations have a duty to spend money responsibly on worthwhile projects

Question 4

what is ‘validate the quality and relevance of research’?

Answer 4

All elements of research are assessed quality and accuracy-formulation hypotheses, methodology cosen, statistical tests used and conclusions drawn

Question 5

what is ‘suggest amendments or improvements’?

Answer 5

Reviews may suggest minor revisions of the work and thereby improve the work. In extreme cases they may suggest the work is inappropriate for publication and should be withdrawn

Question 6

What is the strength of peer review?

Answer 6

Ensures research is of high quality- research is scrutinised by researchers in the same field which increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified. also helps to stop the publication of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims and deliberate fraud

Question 7

what are the three limitations of peer review?

Answer 7

Anonymity- peer reviewers may keep there identity a secret in order to ensure honesty and objectivity. however this can lead to rival researchers criticising who have competing ideas or have crossed them in the past as they have limited government funding

Publication Bias- journals tend to publish positive and ‘headlining grabbing’ results in order to gain more recognition meaning that the criteria was ignored. this leads to bias in publication and misperceptions of the true facts

preserving the status quo- peer review may suppress opposition to mainstream theories in order to maintain the status quo, within in particular scientific fields. reviewers tend to be critical of researchers who contradict their own views. findings that chime with the current opinion are more likely to be published