PSY 510 Module 4 PSY510 Discussion.docx – Snhu

After reading several of the articles from Nature on peer review, I believe the best way

articles in psychology should be selected for publication is through peer review. While there are

ways that the process could be improved upon, nothing is flawless. In order to function well

the system hinges on the integrity and accountability of not only the authors but the editors and

reviewers. There has to be a system in place to help prevent someone’s work from being stolen,

suppressing someone’s ideas, favoritism, misinformation, and purposely misleading reviews.

PSY 510 Module 4 PSY510 Discussion.docx – Snhu

Prestige, as well as financial gain, can also play an integral part in misconduct and if these

instances are not addressed it then leads to mistrust of public trust not only in the information,

but the entire publication process, or as we’ve all heard way too much these days “fake news”.

So what can we do to help improve the process?

I think that transparency is vital when it comes to who is doing the reviewing (what competing

interest do they maybe have if the article succeeds or fails, their level of experience/expertise).

I’m not certain there is really ever a foolproof way of getting around personal/professional bias

but I do feel that authors should have the ability to make submissions anonymously then once

peer-reviewed, if they are approved for publication, makes it necessary for the author’s information

to be attached to it, this might help.

PSY 510 Module 4 PSY510 Discussion.docx – Snhu

There should always be a clear and concise manner in which

submissions are entered, reviewed, and published, this might help prevent someone from

shopping around to find a journal with the least amount of requirements just to get something

published. There should also be a standard of experience needed to be a reviewer (ensuring that

they are staying current in their field). I feel that if an article is denied that when it is returned to

the author(s) that they should be provided with feedback (notes) on why it was rejected, after a

set amount of time (say 30 days) they should then be able to resubmit the article. There has to be

an appeal process and open-door policy so that everyone feels that is not just a good old boys club.

PSY 510 Module 4 PSY510 Discussion.docx – Snhu

• PSY 211 – Lifespan Development (5015 Documents),
• PSY 215 – Abnormal Psychology (4335 Documents),
• PSY 108 – Introduction to Psychology (3759 Documents),
• PSY 223 – Statistics for Psychology Research (2652 Documents),
• PSY 216 – Psychology of Personality (1841 Documents),
• PSY 510 – Research Methods (1748 Documents),
• PSY 520 – Research Methods in Psychology II (1469 Documents),
• PSY 257 – Psychology (1451 Documents),
• PSY 310 – Criminal Psychology (1393 Documents),
• PSY 200 – FOUNDATIONS OF ADDICTIONS (1379 Documents),