Individual differences |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |
In general terms it is sensible for the peer review system for the Psychology Wiki to follow the guideline recommendations established in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.
Constitution of Peer Review GroupsEdit
Role of the Peer Review GroupsEdit
The role of the peer review groups is to arrange for articles taken under their jurisdiction to be peer reviewed in accordance with the highest professional standards in a way tha will win the confidence of academics and practitioners within the discipline of psychology. On the basis of the peer review report they commission articles will be approved, require further work, or be marked for deletion. If approved the group will mark the article as peer reviewed. If it requires further work they should commision this or arrange for members of the team to do this work, independently from subsequent rewiewers. If marked for deletion they should enter the article on the articles marked for deletion page.
The peer review processEdit
Criteria for peer review approvalEdit
- Main article: Criteria for peer review approval on the Psychology Wiki
The main questions in the peer review process for our purposes are:
- Does the article provide a clear statement of the current position of knowledge in an area
- Does it make clear, or link to clear accounts, of any technical definitions, the theoretical background, the methodologies employed, information on prominent workers or research groups in the area, etc.
- Does it contain the main references in the area.
- Does it reflect, or link to accurate accounts of, the diverse views, interpretations etc within the field.
Managing the peer review processEdit
- Main article: Managing the peer review process on the Psychology Wiki
The key to good governance in this area is to separate the tasks of contribution and peer review. One of the rationales for the size of the peer review groups is that some members can work on developing the material while others can be responsible for the review process. Where groups feel that objectivity and independence is compromised they should seek to allocate the task of peer review to an appropriate outsider.
The chair of the peer review group should identify those responsible for reviewing each page and allocate them the task with their agreement to a reasonable time scale.
In principle we argue for transparency in the review process and would like to see the name of reviewers documented in the details of each review group.
The peer review reportEdit
- Main article: Psychology Wiki peer review report format
A formal peer review report on all substantial articles is mandatory
In accordance with the principle of transparency we would like to see the details of any formal peer review report produced. These may be copied and pasted into the reviewed article's discussion page
Labeling an article as peer reviewedEdit
When an article is approved by the peer review group a modified version of this template will be placed on the top right of the article, followed by a the date and a link to the details of the peer review group.