| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
===Labeling an article as peer reviewed=== |
===Labeling an article as peer reviewed=== |
||
| − | 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. [[Template:PRG]] followed by a link to the details of the peer review group |
+ | 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. [[Template:PRG]] followed by a the date and a link to the details of the peer review group. |
| − | </br> |
||
==Arbitration upon objections== |
==Arbitration upon objections== |
||
Revision as of 11:23, 9 May 2010
Assessment |
Biopsychology |
Comparative |
Cognitive |
Developmental |
Language |
Individual differences |
Personality |
Philosophy |
Social |
Methods |
Statistics |
Clinical |
Educational |
Industrial |
Professional items |
World psychology |
Psychology: Debates · Journals · Psychologists
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 Groups
Peer review groups Peer review group format
Role of the Peer Review Groups
The peer review process
Criteria for peer review approval
- 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 process
- 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 report
- 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 reviewed
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. Template:PRG followed by a the date and a link to the details of the peer review group.