The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 1: Building a Program of Research
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research
- Part II The Building Blocks of a Study
- Part III Data Collection
- Part IV Statistical Approaches
- Part V Tips for a Successful Research Career
- 29 Designing a Line of Research
- 30 Successfully Publishing Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- 31 Presenting Your Research
- 32 Building Fruitful Collaborations
- 33 Performing a Good Peer Review
- 34 Handling Submitted Manuscripts: As Editor and Author
- 35 Grant Writing Basics
- 36 Teaching Research Methods and Statistics
- 37 Working Outside Academia
- Index
- References
33 - Performing a Good Peer Review
from Part V - Tips for a Successful Research Career
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 May 2023
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research
- Part II The Building Blocks of a Study
- Part III Data Collection
- Part IV Statistical Approaches
- Part V Tips for a Successful Research Career
- 29 Designing a Line of Research
- 30 Successfully Publishing Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- 31 Presenting Your Research
- 32 Building Fruitful Collaborations
- 33 Performing a Good Peer Review
- 34 Handling Submitted Manuscripts: As Editor and Author
- 35 Grant Writing Basics
- 36 Teaching Research Methods and Statistics
- 37 Working Outside Academia
- Index
- References
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
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral SciencesVolume 1: Building a Program of Research, pp. 714 - 733Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
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
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