Peer Review

Question 1

What is Peer Review?

Answer 1

Assessment of scientific work by others who are experts in the same field

Question 2

What is the intention of peer review?

Answer 2

The intention of peer reviewing is ensure any research conducted and published is of high quality

Question 3

What is the process of Peer Review?

Answer 3

Before a study is conducted, the proposal and plan are carefully scrutinised by experts and ethics committees to ensure issues are dealt with before the research begins. Then before the study is published, it is subjected to Peer Review (using journal and expert conferences etc.)
> Reputable journals use a strict review process to prevent their published material being flawed: Potential source of bias; ethical issues; control variables; reliability and validity; and interpretations of findings and appropriateness of conclusions

Question 4

What are the 3 main purposes of Peer Review

Answer 4

1. Allocation of Research funding
2. Publication of Research
3. Assessing the research rating of university departments

Question 5

Explain ‘1. Allocation of research funding’ as a purpose of Peer review

Answer 5

Public bodies such as the MRC (Medical Research Council) require reviews to enable decisions for granting research grants more responsibly. In 2008/9 they had £605million to spend

Question 6

Explain ‘2. Publication of research’ as a purpose of peer review

Answer 6

In scientific journals and books - it is used as a means of preventing incorrect or faulty data entering the public domain - prior to this, the burden of proof lay with the opponents of any new ideas.

Question 7

Explain ‘3. Assessing the research rating of university departments’ as a purpose of Peer Review

Answer 7

All University research is assessed in terms of quality. Future funding for the department depends on receiving good ratings against the Research Excellence Framework (REF)

Question 8

How does Peer review attempt to eliminate bias?

Answer 8

• Researchers not being told whose work they’re reviewing
• Monetary rewards/consequences of a study are not discussed until after flaws are discussed
  > Rejection rates are often up to 80% which proves high quality of published work
  > Researchers have to state on the paper the source of the funding as sometimes there will be a vested interest in the outcome of source funding
  > Meta-analysis can often be used to further validate findings

Question 9

What are the 3 categories to evaluate Peer Review?

Answer 9

• Finding an expert
• Anonymity
• Publication bias

Question 10

Evaluate Peer review using ‘Finding an expert’

Answer 10

It isn’t always possible to find an appropriate expert to review a research proposal or report. This means that poor research may be passed because the viewer didn’t really understand it (Smith 1999)

Question 11

Evaluate Peer review using ‘Anonymity’

Answer 11

Usually practised so reviewers can be honest and objective - However, it may have the opposite effect if the viewer wants to bury new rival research.

Question 12

Evaluate Peer Review using ‘Publication Bias’

Answer 12

Journals prefer to publish positive results because editors want research with important implications to increase standings of their journal - this could result in bias published research = a misperception of the true facts
- Journals hate to publish replications of prior studies despite it being vital to research validation. E.g. French (2011) submitted a replication of a study on paranormal phenomena and found it was not considered for peer review.