An introduction to peer review Research Student Generic Skills Training Programme, College of Social Sciences, November 2010 Jo Brewis, School of Management

“Peer review is the practice by which the worth of research is evaluated by those with demonstrated competence to make a judgement. It is the traditional means by which research quality is guaranteed in academic studies.” (British Academy, 2007: 1) When is peer review used? Developmentally/ ‘in-house’ Journal papers Conference papers (abstracts)/ presentations (/ discussants) Book proposals Book manuscripts Bids to providers of competitive funding (eg ESRC, EU)

When is peer review used? MPhil/ PhD applications MPhil/ PhD upgrade examinations MPhil/ PhD vivas Academic job applications/ interviews (including external assessors) ‘Second-order’ reviews like the REF, ERA, PBRF Post-publication commentary/ ‘reply to’ Is all academic research in part peer review? Vary in terms of anonymity, formality and how many people are involved So peer review is a vital process, and there is a lot of it to do

Reviewing pointers Delivering on time Awareness of the function/ status of the text Restate purpose (as you interpret it)? Start with the positive Consider the text on its own merits Does/ could it make a contribution? Does it fit within its intended home? Does it start well? Identification of key omissions or deficiencies of interpretation (conceptual and/ or empirical) Does it evidence its claims? Identification of structural weaknesses

Reviewing pointers Do the data ‘speak back’ to the conceptual framework where relevant? Major and minor? Does it end well? Are implications clearly stated? Is it clearly expressed? Constructive criticism Be specific Conformity to house style/ format where relevant Don’t reveal your actual recommendation As a discussant, avoid focusing on small points and be succinct

Also remember that for journals the usual recommendations would be: accept minor revisions major revisions reject not suitable for this journal (special issues) Confidential comments to the editor NB The advent of Manuscript Central For example:

Overall ‘do as you would be done by’ Try and ensure your advice will make the text better Make it clear why you have made your recommendation Some examples of how not to do it Any questions?