PEER REVIEW
SPECIFICATION:The role of peer review in the scientific process
INTRODUCTION
In today's world, anyone can share their research online, claiming it's "published." But just because you can post something online doesn't mean it's solid research. The real test of research's value is whether it's been peer-reviewed. Peer review is like a quality check by other experts in the field. They look at the work to see if it's done well and if it adds something new or important to what's already known. This process helps separate the good research from the not-so-good. So, while the internet is full of different ideas, peer review helps us figure out which ones are worth paying attention to
A BRIEF HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The origins of peer review in 1665 are closely tied to establishing the first scientific journals and the burgeoning scientific community's need for a formal mechanism to validate and disseminate research findings. The catalyst for its origination was the founding of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society by Henry Oldenburg, the secretary of the Royal Society of London. This period it marked a significant shift towards systematic inquiry and the dissemination of scientific knowledge, moving away from the secrecy and individualism that had previously characterised scientific discovery.
Several factors contributed to the initiation and subsequent evolution of peer review:
Verification and Validation: As scientific research began to play a more central role in society, there was an increasing need to ensure that the published findings were accurate, reliable, and could be trusted by other scientists and the public. Peer review served as a method for verifying the validity of research through scrutiny by other experts in the field.
Quality Control: The growth in the volume of scientific research necessitated a system for quality control to manage and maintain the integrity of the scientific record. Peer review provided a way to filter out unsubstantiated or poorly conducted research, ensuring that only studies of a certain standard were published.
Scientific Communication: The establishment of Philosophical Transactions and other early scientific journals created a platform for the formal communication of scientific ideas and discoveries. Peer review facilitated the organized and credible dissemination of this information within the scientific community and beyond.
Community Standards: The peer review helped establish and enforce community standards in research and reporting, promoting consistency and rigour across scientific disciplines.
By the 19th century, as the number of scientific journals increased, so did the practice of peer review, though it remained inconsistent and varied widely among publications.
Subsequent amendments and refinements to the peer review process were driven by the evolving needs of the scientific community, advances in technology, and challenges encountered in the practice of peer review itself. These include:
Introduction of Anonymity: To reduce bias and protect reviewers, the process evolved to include anonymous or blind reviews, where the identities of the reviewer and the author are not disclosed.
Expansion and Specialisation: As science became more specialized, the peer review process adapted to address the complexities of different fields, requiring more specialized knowledge from reviewers.
Digital Transformation: The digital age has transformed peer review with online submission and review processes, increasing efficiency and introducing new challenges around accessibility and the integrity of the review process.
Open Peer Review and Transparency: Some journals have experimented with open peer review processes in response to calls for greater transparency and accountability, where reviewer comments and identities are made public.
THE ROLE OF PEER REVIEW IN THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS
THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS:
The peer review process starts when a researcher finishes their study and writes up the results; the next step is to share this knowledge with the wider academic world by publishing it in a scholarly journal. This begins with the researcher sending their written study to a journal's publisher. The publisher then shares this study with other experts in the same area, starting the peer review process. These experts review the study to see if it's new and thorough, adds something important to their field, and then give feedback. Depending on their thoughts, the study could be published, sent back to the researcher to make some changes, or not published at all. A study that doesn't pass this review process is generally not seen as significant. This process is crucial because it ensures that only high-quality research that truly adds to what we know gets published.
Here’s how it typically unfolds:
Submission: A researcher submits their manuscript to a journal in their field. This document includes their study's background, methodology, results, and conclusions.
Editorial Assessment: Initially, the journal's editor reviews the submission to determine if it meets the basic criteria for quality and relevance to the journal's scope. If it passes this preliminary check, the manuscript moves to the next stage.
Reviewer Selection: The editor selects a panel of experts, often anonymous to the author, who are knowledgeable in the manuscript's subject area. These reviewers evaluate the submission's validity, significance, and originality.
Review: The selected peers review the manuscript, assessing its methodology, data, conclusions, and compliance with ethical standards. They consider the work's contribution to the field and adherence to the journal's guidelines.
Feedback: Reviewers submit their evaluations to the journal, often including recommendations for acceptance, revision, or rejection. This feedback usually contains constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement.
Author Revisions: The author may be asked to revise their manuscript based on the reviewers' feedback. This can involve clarifying points, reanalyzing data, or conducting additional experiments.
Reevaluation: The revised manuscript may be reviewed by the original or new peers. This cycle can repeat until the reviewers and editor are satisfied.
Decision: The editor makes a final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations. The manuscript can be accepted, rejected, or sometimes sent back for more revisions.
Publication: Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes final editing, typesetting, and proofreading before publication.
This process, while time-consuming, plays a vital role in maintaining the scientific community's standards by filtering out flawed or insignificant work and enhancing the published research's overall quality and reliability.
ADVANTAGES
Peer review holds a pivotal role across the entire scientific community, serving two crucial purposes:
First, it allows researchers to engage with the work of their peers, staying abreast of novel ideas and advancements in science. This engagement can inspire collaboration or motivate researchers to build upon, refine, or challenge existing theories. The exchange of information is fundamental to the expansion of knowledge.
Second, when studies are submitted for publication, they undergo rigorous scrutiny. This critical evaluation safeguards preventing research of inferior quality from being published and accessed by the public.
Securing publication for a study is like earning approval from the scientific community, a vital factor for university departments. When universities publish significant peer-reviewed research, their standing in specific fields rises. For instance, while Oxbridge leads overall research publications, UCL stands out in psychology. Russell Group universities, known for their high-quality peer-reviewed research, attract considerable funding from organisations eager to have their research carried out by these institutions. This funding, in turn, supports lecturers and their research activities, contributing to the universities' reputations.
Unlike textbooks, journals issue new volumes regularly, providing a continual record of research. University libraries keep these volumes and also subscribe to online journals forever. Publications like The British Journal of Clinical Psychology address a broad range of topics, while others, such as the British Journal of Psychology, focus on specific areas within psychology, and journals like Personality and Individual Differences concentrate on particular niches.
ADVANTAGES OF P IN A NUTSHELL:
Quality Assurance: Ensures that only research meeting high accuracy, methodology, and ethics standards is published.
Credibility Enhancement: Adds credibility to research by having it vetted by independent experts in the field.
Constructive Feedback: Provides authors constructive feedback to improve their work before publication.
Error Detection: Helps identify research gaps the original researchers might have overlooked.
Advancement of the Field: Encourages researchers to produce high-quality work that contributes to the advancement of their field.
Filter for Significance: Acts as a filter to ensure that only research that adds new knowledge or understanding is published.
Accountability: Increases accountability in scientific research, as authors must address peer reviewers' critiques.
Public Trust: Builds public trust in scientific research by demonstrating that the work has undergone rigorous evaluation.
Prevention of Plagiarism and Fraud: Reduces the likelihood of plagiarism and fraudulent work being published.
Professional Development: Offers an opportunity for professional development for both authors and reviewers through the review and feedback process
DISADVANTAGES
Peer review is not without flaws; there are instances where the system fails.
Cases of proven fraud, though rare, have occurred, including instances of plagiarism, data falsification, and fabrication (UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2002). FOR EXAMPLE:
Andrew Wakefield and the MMR Vaccine (1998): Perhaps one of the most infamous cases, British doctor Andrew Wakefield published a study in The Lancet claiming a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. The paper sparked a significant public health scare. Investigations later revealed that Wakefield had manipulated data and had undisclosed financial conflicts of interest. The Lancet fully retracted the paper in 2010, and Wakefield was struck off the UK medical register, but the damage to public health perceptions persists.
Hwang Woo-Suk's Stem Cell Research (2004-2005): South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-Suk published groundbreaking papers in Science claiming to have successfully created human embryonic stem cells through cloning. Investigations later uncovered that Hwang had fabricated data, and the papers were retracted. This scandal highlighted the pressures of publish-or-perish cultures and the need for rigorous peer review and oversight.
Jan Hendrik Schön and the Physics Scandal (2002): Schön, a physicist at Bell Labs, published numerous papers on semiconductors and superconductivity in prestigious journals, including Science and Nature. His results, which were initially hailed as revolutionary, were found to be fabricated, leading to one of the most significant cases of scientific misconduct in physics.
Diederik Stapel's Social Psychology Fraud (2011): Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel was found to have fabricated data in at least 55 publications. His fraudulent research on human behaviour was published in reputable journals and went undetected for years, raising concerns about the efficacy of peer review in detecting fraud in social science research.
Cyril Burt: Cyril Burt, a British psychologist, became infamous for fabricating data in his studies on the heritability of intelligence. His work on twins reared apart was foundational to the argument that genetics largely determines intelligence. However, after his death, it was discovered that Burt likely invented some twins in his studies and manipulated data to fit his hypotheses. This case is particularly egregious because Burt's fraudulent data significantly influenced educational policies and the understanding of intelligence for many years.
John Money and the John/Joan Case: John Money, a psychologist and sexologist, reported on the reassignment surgery of David Reimer, who was raised as Brenda following a botched circumcision. Money claimed that the gender reassignment was successful, supporting his theory that gender identity is primarily learned rather than innate. However, the reality was quite different; Reimer's experience was fraught with distress and identity issues, leading him to reassume his male identity in adolescence. Money's disregard for the distress and eventual outcome, including Reimer's tragic suicide, raises critical ethical questions about research conduct and the responsibility of peer-reviewed journals to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the studies they publish.
Bordens and Abbott (2008) raise concerns about the peer review system potentially stifling revolutionary research due to the scientific community's generally conservative stance. This resistance to change can impede significant shifts in understanding or methodology, such as paradigm shifts in psychology. The transition from psychodynamic to behaviourist theories in psychology is a prime example of such a shift, illustrating how new ideas that drastically diverge from established theories may struggle to gain acceptance.
Furthermore, the contemporary context of socially sensitive topics in Western culture adds another complexity to the peer review process. Researchers and academics may hesitate to endorse studies that challenge prevailing ideology, such as gender critical theory, for fear of professional backlash. The controversy surrounding figures like Germaine Greer, who has faced opposition and bans from speaking at universities due to her views on gender and biological sex, underscores the emotionally charged nature of some academic debates. This climate can influence the peer review process, where reviewers might be reluctant to approve research that contradicts widely accepted social theories or critiques mainstream treatments like psychotropic drugs, regardless of the scientific merit of the research. This dynamic highlights a tension between the pursuit of scientific inquiry and the impact of societal values on disseminating research findings.
BIAS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Even with anonymity, reviewers may have conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment, whether due to personal relationships, competitive interests, or intellectual biases. Bias in the peer review process can undermine its objectivity, especially when reviewers hold strong opposing views. Achieving complete neutrality is challenging, as reviewers might struggle to separate their personal, political, or cultural values from their evaluations. The intended anonymity of peer review sometimes fails within small, specialized research communities, potentially allowing for personal vendettas or biases against research that threaten the reviewer's interests (Cardwell and Flanagan, 2009). Additionally, reviewers might favour work from their social or professional circles. Institutional and gender biases are also prevalent, with studies from prestigious universities or male researchers often receiving preferential treatment.
A notable instance demonstrating bias in psychology's peer review process is the controversy surrounding Hans Eysenck's research. Eysenck, a well-known British psychologist, published findings linking personality traits to cancer and heart disease mortality rates, challenging the established role of environmental factors like smoking. Despite the controversial nature of his conclusions, it took years for his work to be critically reviewed. In 2019, King's College London declared his research on personality and disease "unsafe," citing methodological shortcomings and potential conflicts of interest. The initial peer review process had failed to scrutinize Eysenck's work effectively, likely influenced by his status in the field and the provocative implications of his research. This case highlights how biases, whether due to a researcher's reputation or the contentiousness of their findings, can shape the peer review process and significantly impact public health discourse and policy.
LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: Traditional peer review processes are often single or double-blinded, which can lead to a lack of transparency. Critics argue that this can obscure potential conflicts of interest and bias.
THE FILE DRAWER PROBLEM:
The 'file-drawer problem' points to a pervasive bias in academic publishing, where studies reporting positive, hypothesis-confirming outcomes are favoured. This preference undermines the value of negative findings, which is essential for a nuanced grasp of research areas. Negative results frequently encounter journal rejection or remain unsubmitted, leading to numerous studies with negative outcomes hidden away, unseen by the academic community. Consequently, this creates an imbalance in the published literature, with a preponderance of positive results that can misrepresent the true state of research and knowledge in various fields, distorting our collective comprehension and perspective.
A well-documented real-life example of the 'file-drawer problem' can be seen in the field of pharmaceutical research, particularly in the publication of clinical trial results for antidepressants. A notable instance involves the selective publication of trial results for the drug paroxetine, marketed as Paxil, which was studied for its effectiveness in treating depression.
An analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2008 revealed that the pharmaceutical industry had published nearly all the positive studies on antidepressants but had not published or had published in a delayed or misleading manner a significant number of studies with negative or inconclusive results. This selective publication skewed the scientific literature to make the drugs appear more effective than the raw data suggested.
For paroxetine, several trials showing the drug was not more effective than a placebo in treating depression were not published or were published with a spin that conveyed a positive outcome. This practice of selective publishing contributed to a distorted understanding of the drug's efficacy, impacting prescribing practices and patient care.
Such instances underscore the impact of the 'file-drawer problem' on scientific integrity and public health, demonstrating how the selective publication of positive findings over negative ones can mislead healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public about the effectiveness and safety of treatments.
PUBLICATION BIAS: Beyond the preference for positive results, there can also be a bias towards publishing studies deemed more 'newsworthy' or that align with the journal's or field's prevailing theories and interests, potentially sidelining equally valid but less sensational research. A notable example of publication bias, particularly related to the preference for 'newsworthy' studies, can be seen in the field of nutrition research. An illustrative case is the widespread media coverage and academic interest in studies linking red meat consumption to various health risks, including cancer and heart disease. While these studies receive significant attention and are readily published in prestigious journals, equally rigorous research that finds no significant link between red meat consumption and health risks often struggles to find a similar platform.
For instance, in 2019, articles published in the Annals of Internal Medicine challenged the prevailing narrative by suggesting that the evidence against red meat consumption was not as strong as previously thought. This publication sparked controversy and debate within the nutrition science community and among public health advocates, highlighting the tension between sensational findings and those that challenge or refine existing dietary guidelines.
This scenario demonstrates how the allure of groundbreaking or controversial findings can overshadow equally important but less sensational research. It underscores the complexity of navigating publication bias, where the demand for novel and media-friendly results can influence what research gets published and promoted, potentially skewing public understanding and policy decisions based on a comprehensive view of scientific evidence.
ACCESS TO PEER REVIEW: Finding qualified reviewers to review a paper can be challenging, especially for niche or interdisciplinary topics. This can limit the diversity of perspectives in the review process.
TIME CONSUMING PROCESSThe peer review process can be lengthy, delaying the dissemination of new findings. This can be particularly problematic in fast-moving fields where timely publication is critical.
REVIEWER WORKLOAD The increasing volume of research submissions strains potential reviewers, who often volunteer their time. This can lead to delays in the review process and potentially reduce the thoroughness of the review.
ECONOMIC BARRIERS: Publication fees associated with some peer-reviewed journals can be prohibitive for researchers with limited funding, potentially limiting the diversity of published research.
These disadvantages underscore the complexity of the peer review process and highlight the ongoing need for reforms to address its limitations while preserving its role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly communication.
Despite these problems, we would not know whether someone’s claims were fact or fiction without peer review. A quick trip around the Internet will provide you with reasons for everything and guarantee you cures for just about anything, so we need to look a little closer at the actual process of peer review and its role in validating new knowledge. We need to ensure that anyone picking up a psychological research paper or downloading an article from an online psychological journal can be confident that the information is valid and reliable.
CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING
What led to the origination of peer review in 1665, and who was a pivotal figure in its establishment?
How has the introduction of anonymity in the peer review process impacted bias and reviewer protection?
Can you describe how the 'file-drawer problem' affects the academic community's dissemination and perception of research findings?
What example illustrates the 'file-drawer problem' within pharmaceutical research, specifically concerning antidepressants?
According to the scenario provided, how does publication bias towards 'newsworthy' studies manifest in nutrition research?
In the case of Hans Eysenck's research on personality and health outcomes, what issues were identified that highlight potential biases in the peer review process?
What are some of the main disadvantages of the current peer review system, as identified in the text, and how do they impact the integrity and efficiency of scholarly communication?
EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
Q: "Discuss the role of peer review (7 marks),
The top range for marks peer review questions seems to be the 7-mark question. Many exam boards frame this question as "Discuss the role of peer review (7 marks)," where "Discuss" implies outlining and evaluating. A structured approach is recommended to address the task effectively. This answer breaks down into three key components:
DEFINITION: (2 marks):
Psychologists send their unpublished research to other psychologists for review and judgment.
This is done by psychologists in the same field as the researcher so that more reliable reviews can be made and researchers can stay abreast of recent research.
ADVANTAGES: (2 marks):
Qualified psychologists can weed out unethical, invalid, or unreliable; poor research is essential. Researchers in the same field can keep abreast of new research via peer review and journal publications.
Qualified psychologists can identify and exclude unethical research practices. Qualified psychologists can identify and exclude invalid or unreliable research, ensuring higher research standards. Researchers can stay updated on new developments in their field through peer-reviewed journals and publications.
DISADVANTAGES: (3 marks):
Research may be so unique that no experts can review it. Peer reviewers, who may also be competitors in the same research area, might criticize research that challenges or contradicts their work due to jealousy or loss of credibility. Research findings that support the null hypothesis are often rejected, leading to a biased view of the research area. Research from male-dominated or prestigious universities may be favoured over others, leading to bias in the peer review process. Radical ideas or approaches that go against the current dominant paradigm, such as cognitive neuroscience, may be rejected, stifling innovation and progress.
