Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-20T16:22:37.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

33 - Performing a Good Peer Review

from Part V - Tips for a Successful Research Career

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2023

By
Klaus Fiedler  and
Christian Unkelbach
Edited by
Austin Lee Nichols  and
John Edlund
Austin Lee Nichols
Affiliation:
Central European University, Vienna
John Edlund
Affiliation:
Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
Get access

Summary

Peer review supports decisions related to publications, grant proposals, awards, or personnel selection. Independent of the specific occasion, we propose validity as a chief evaluation criterion for reviews. While applicable to all occasions, the principles of validity-oriented quality control are particularly suited for journal reviews. Beyond evaluating validity and the scientific potential of a given piece of research, we address how peer reviewing serves important functions and is accountable for the growth of science at a more superordinate level. We also provide guidelines and concrete recommendations for how a good peer review may serve these functions. Good peer review, thereby, fosters both the advancement of scientific research and the quality, precision, and sincerity of the scientific literature. The end of the chapter is devoted to a core set of good reviewer practices, conceived as an essential feature of academic culture.

Keywords

Internal ValidityExternal ValidityDiagnostic DesignTheoretical PriorsAdvancement of ScienceWriting StyleGood Researcher Practices
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 1: Building a Program of Research
 , pp. 714 - 733
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alves, H., Koch, A., & Unkelbach, C. (2017). Why good is more alike than bad: Processing implications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 69–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amabile, T. M. (1983). Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 146–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bischof, N. (1975). A systems‘ approach towards the functional connections of attachment and fear. Child Development, 46, 801–817.Google Scholar
Brunswik, E (1952) The conceptual framework of psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 49(6), 654–656Google Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297–312.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. (1954). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (Translated by P. P. Wiener). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Earp, B. D. & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 621.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., Cuccolo, K., Irgens, M. S., Wagge, J. R., & Zlokovich, M. S. (2022). Saving science through replication studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 216–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K. (2017). What constitutes strong psychological science? The (neglected) role of diagnosticity and a priori theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K., McCaughey, L., & Prager, J. (2021). Quo vadis, methodology? The key role of manipulation checks for validity control and quality of science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 816–826.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. & Ball, S. (1989). The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: Interjudgmental reliability. The Journal of Experimental Education, 57(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1980). Two dogmas of empiricism. In Quine, W. V. O. (ed.), From a Logical Point of View, 2nd ed. (pp. 20–46). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. (1984). Applying Hamlet‘s question to the ethical conduct of research: A conceptual addendum. American Psychologist, 39, 561–563.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, T. (1957). On hand … offhand: Books. Venture Science Fiction, 1, 49.Google Scholar
Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unkelbach, C., Koch, A., & Alves, H. (2019). The evaluative information ecology: On the frequency and diversity of “good” and “bad”. European Review of Social Psychology, 30, 216–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unkelbach, C., Alves, H., & Koch, A. (2020). Negativity bias, positivity bias, and valence asymmetries: Explaining the differential processing of positive and negative information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 115–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenmakers, E. J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., et al. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yaniv, I., Choshen-Hillel, S., & Milyavsky, M. (2009). Spurious consensus and opinion revision: Why might people be more confident in their less accurate judgments? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 558–563.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×