Responsible authorship and peer review

In this article the basic principles of responsible authorship and peer review are surveyed, with special emphasis on (a) guidelines for refereeing archival journal articles and proposals; and (b) how these guidelines should be taken into account at all stages of writing. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land. Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing. ... It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. ... In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. Richard P. Feynman, “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!” ¹ (pp. 310–311)     

Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review

This paper presents a framework that editors, peer reviewers, and authors can use to identify and resolve efficiently disputes that arise during peer review in scientific journals. The framework is called a scientific dialectical brief. In this framework, differences among authors and reviewers are formatted into specific assertions and the support each party provides for its position. A literature review suggests that scientists use five main types of support; empirical data, reasoning, speculation, feelings, and status. It is suggested that the scientific dialectical brief format can streamline the review process by facilitating rapid differentiation between stronger and weaker support, so that valuable time can be focused on the better-substantiated claims. The paper concludes with some suggestions for implementation. The author researches, lectures and publishes in the area of physical and social aspects of environmental quality. He is also a practicing architect. This paper is based on a presentation at a workshop, “Advances in Peer Review Research”, American Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting, Baltimore, MD, February 9, 1996.     

Child-parent attachment and children's peer relations: a quantitative review

The central premise of attachment theory is that the security of the early child-parent bond is reflected in the child's interpersonal relationships across the life span. This meta-analysis was based on 63 studies that reported correlations between child-parent attachment and children's peer relations. The overall effect size (ES) for child-mother attachment was in the small-to-moderate range and was quite homogeneous. ESs were similar in studies that featured the Strange Situation and Q-sort methods. The effects were larger for peer relations in middle childhood and adolescence than for peer relations in early childhood. ESs were also higher for studies that focused on children's close friendships rather than on relations with other peers. Gender and cultural differences in ESs were minimal. The results for the few studies on father-child attachment were inconclusive.     

The role of the study section in the NIH peer review system

This paper describes the NIH grants review system, which is designed to evaluate a grant proposal for both technical merit and programmatic interest. In particular, it discusses the initial review for scientific and technical merit, using as example the Computer Study Section, which reviews applications in computer science, physiological modeling, and statistics. Criteria for evaluation include: knowledge of the state of the field, relevance to scientific innovation, commitment by the investigator, strength of association between theoretician and practitioner, methodology, human factors, and experience.     

When reviews attack: ethics, free speech, and the peer review process.

The peer review process, whether formally applied in publication and grant review, or informally, such as exchange of ideas in scientific and professional newsgroups, has sparked controversy. Writers in this area agree that scholarly reviews that are inappropriate in tone are not uncommon. Indeed, commentators have suggested rules and guidelines that can be used to improve the review process and to make reviewers more accountable. In this paper, we examine the relevance and impact of ethical codes on the conduct of peer review. It is our contention that the peer review process can be improved, not by a new set of rules but through closer attention to the ethical principles to which we, as psychologists, already subscribe.     

A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis

Bullying and peer victimization in school are serious concerns for students, parents, teachers, and school officials in the U.S. and around the world. This article reviews risk factors associated with bullying and peer victimization in school within the context of Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework. This review integrates empirical findings on the risk factors associated with bullying and peer victimization within the context of micro- (parent–youth relationships, inter-parental violence, relations with peers, school connectedness, and school environment), meso- (teacher involvement), exo- (exposure to media violence, neighborhood environment), macro- (cultural norms and beliefs, religious affiliation), and chronosystem (changes in family structure) levels. Theories that explain the relationships between the risk factors and bullying behavior are also included. We then discuss the efficacy of the current bullying prevention and intervention programs, which is followed by directions for future research.     

Childhood peer relationships: social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks

This review addresses several areas of contemporary research in children's peer relationships during the elementary and middle school years, with primary foci on children's peer acceptance, the ability to make and maintain friendships, and their participation in larger peer networks. Particular attention is given to research examining the major developments and individual differences in each of these components of children's peer relations, how these different aspects of peer functioning relate to one another, and how they contribute to development more generally, including school adjustment and achievement. Finally, it is argued that children's psychosocial development may be best informed by an integration of these somewhat independent research traditions.     

Adolescents' parent and peer relationships

High school seniors (N = 89) from a suburban private high school were administered a comprehensive questionnaire to determine differences between adolescents who rated the quality of their parent and peer relationships as high or low. Adolescents with high parent and high peer relationship scores had more friends, greater family togetherness, lower levels of depression and drug use, and a higher grade point average.