| Autor: |
Aly M; Department of Psychology, Columbia University., Colunga E; Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder., Crockett MJ; Department of Psychology, Princeton University., Goldrick M; Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University., Gomez P; Department of Psychology, California State University San Bernardino., Kung FYH; Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University., McKee PC; Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University., Pérez M; Department of Psychology, North Park University., Stilwell SM; Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan., Diekman AB; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington. |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Zdroj: |
Journal of experimental psychology. General [J Exp Psychol Gen] 2023 Dec; Vol. 152 (12), pp. 3546-3565. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Sep 07. |
| DOI: |
10.1037/xge0001461 |
| Abstrakt: |
Peer review is a core component of scientific practice. Although peer review ideally improves research and promotes rigor, it also has consequences for what types of research are published and cited and who wants to (and is able to) advance in research-focused careers. Despite these consequences, few reviewers or editors receive training or oversight to ensure their feedback is helpful, professional, and culturally sensitive. Here, we critically examine the peer-review system in psychology and neuroscience at multiple levels, from ideas to institutions, interactions, and individuals. We highlight initiatives that aim to change the normative negativity of peer review and provide authors with constructive, actionable feedback that is sensitive to diverse identities, methods, topics, and environments. We conclude with a call to action for how individuals, groups, and organizations can improve the culture of peer review. We provide examples of how changes in the peer-review system can be made with an eye to diversity (increasing the range of identities and experiences constituting the field), equity (fair processes and outcomes across groups), and inclusion (experiences that promote belonging across groups). These changes can improve scientists' experience of peer review, promote diverse perspectives and identities, and enhance the quality and impact of science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved). |
| Databáze: |
MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
