8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
1/17
Academic Publishing & Peer Review
Readings on Sakai:
Furguson & Heene, 2012; Suls & Martin, 2009
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
2/17
How Research is Disseminated
Personal contact (in-person, e-mail, talks by invitedspeakers, listservs)
Presentations at professional meetings
Posters
Talks or symposia (often15-20 minutes per speaker) Publications that are not peer reviewed
Chapters
Some less prestigious journals
Peer-reviewed journal publication
(see Chapter 16 in the textbook for an
overview)
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
3/17
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
4/17
Publishing in a Peer-Reviewed Journal
Step 1: Select the Journal
Fit with the journal: Social psychology alone has over60 journals (in addition to clinical, cognitive,developmental, neuroscience, and interdisciplinaryjournals)
Journals are ranked by impact factor(the number of
citations received by the average article in thatjournal)
Top-tier journals reject >80% of submittedmanuscripts!
Example impact factors over 5 years Science = 33.6
Annual Review of Psychology = 23.3
Psychological Bulletin = 18.1
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology = 6.9=
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
5/17
Publishing in a Peer-Reviewed Journal
Step 2: Peer Review
Key figures: author(s), editor, reviewers
1. Author submits the paper to the editor of a relevantjournal.
2. Editor quickly checks to make sure that the paper isappropriate (~60% are rejected [triaged] at thisstage).
3. Editor sends a copy of the paper to 3-5 reviewerswho are experts in the area.
4. Each reviewer reads and critiques the paper andsends a written review to the editor.
5. The editor reads the paper and the reviews, makes adecision, and provides feedback.
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
6/17
Editorial Decisions
Ultimately, decisions are the responsibility of theeditor
The editor may decide to: accept the paper as it is with no revisions requested.
(This almost never happens
!only ~2% of the time) accept the paper for publication contingent on the author
making minor revisions.
ask the author to revise and resubmitthe manuscript itfor further consideration. Then, the editor may:
decide to approve or reject her- or himself send the manuscript back to the original reviewers
send the manuscript to a new set of reviewers
reject the paper with no opportunity for resubmission tothat particular journal.
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
7/17
Why peer review?
Filter out research that includes major: methodological flaws
statistical flaws
unaddressed limitations or inappropriate conclusions
Provide feedback and allow authors to improve the
paper
Prioritize research that is novel and contributes to
the research literature
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
8/17
Publishing in a Peer-Reviewed Journal
Step 3: Copy Editing / Press
Copy editors check for errors in APA format, wording,grammar, etc.
After changes, the manuscript is in press
Some journals quickly post articles online
It usually takes several months (up to a year!) untilthe article appears in print
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
9/17
Approximate Research timelines
Collect data and prepare manuscript (at least 1 year) Write the manuscript (several months)
Submit and wait for feedback (about 3 months)
Editor identifies reviewers (1-2 weeks)
Reviewers provide feedback (3-6 weeks)
Editor makes a decision and sends feedback (0-4 weeks)
If not rejected, respond to feedback and wait for
round 2 (several months, possibly a year to collect
more data!)
Copyediting (1-2 months)
In press (up to a year before print)The research you see in print began at least 2 years
ago!
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
10/17
Serving as a Peer-Reviewer
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
11/17
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
12/17
A high quality review
Demonstrates understanding Start with a brief summary of the manuscript
Make sure you understand the paper! Be specific and
accurate.
Is appropriately critical Are there major methodological or statistical flaws?
Are there other interpretations of the results?
Are there limitations that should be acknowledged?3
Is balanced
Highlight the positives and the contribution of the paper
Interpret negatives in a broader, balanced manner
Clearly distinguishes between majorand minorissues
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
13/17
Writing a review
First paragraph: Begin by summarizing (perhaps in just 2 sentences) what you
see as the major theme of the paper.
To what extent does this theme contribute to the literature?
Provide an overall assessment of the manuscript.
The next several sections should back up the overallassessment by addressing majorconcerns with thepaper, including: Major methodological or statistical issues
Potential artifacts or plausible alternative explanations
Inappropriate conclusions
Finally, you might address minor concerns and(optionally) comments on grammar or writing.
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
14/17
What you might address in the review
Does the introduction provide an appropriate review ofthe relevant literature? Are any major papers or theoriesomitted that should be addressed?
Are the hypotheses logically derived from the backgroundmaterial?
Are the methods and statistical analyses appropriate fortesting the research question?
Are the data analyzed appropriately? Is everythingreported and interpreted sufficiently?
Is the discussion appropriate? Do the authors go beyondthe data in their interpretations? Do they appropriatelyaddress major limitations and alternative explanations?
Is the manuscript longer than it needs to be?
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
15/17
Example Reviews
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
16/17
Problems with Peer Review and Publication
Publication biasnonsignificant results are difficultto publish
Due to null hypothesis significance testing, null results are
difficult to interpret (no effect? low power? problem with
the manipulation?)
Authors can easily rationalize and dismiss a single null
result.
As a result, nonsignificant findings are often filed away
and are not visible (the file drawer effect)
Meta-analysis helps, but it is difficult (maybe impossible)to identify all unpublished studies
Some editors or reviewers are inexperienced,
biased, or overly negative
8/12/2019 Academic+Publishing+ +Peer+Review
17/17
Potential Solutions to Problems with Peer
Review
Open Access journals (e.g., PLOS ONE) Authors (or Universities or grants) pay publication fees
rather than libraries or consumers
Articles are often posted online, speeding publication
PLOS ONE reviews based on methodological soundnessrather than novelty or statistical significance
Ongoing, public review