Economic Psychology – Decision-making

ou need to write a post-publication peer review of an empirical paper of no more than 1,000 words.
The quality of scientific contributions is monitored through the ‘peer-review’ process, whereby fellow scientists carefully examine and evaluate articles by their colleagues. In most journals, peer
review is undertaken prior to publication, with 2-4 anonymous reviewers with expertise of the topic, providing reviews to a journal editor. The editor considers the reviewers’ reports, including both
their recommendations regarding publication, and any queries, concerns or suggestions for improvement that they raised, and will typically accept an article for publication only if reviews are
positive, and any comments have been suitably addressed.
In addition to pre-publication peer-reviews – which are used to improve articles, and select them for publication, there are now journals and websites that encourage post-publication peer review and commentary – opportunities for the scientific community to discuss published research. Your task is to write a clear and well-argued critical post-publication peer-review of an article. It
should be critical in that you should explicitly judge the quality of the research (and conclusions) described within the paper. You should make it clear whether the claims made from the data are
appropriate, and describe ways in which the research could have been improved. There is (at present) no single accepted structure for a post-publication peer review. These range from may be short published articles, which may be peer-reviewed themselves by editors, to a simple twitter thread). However, we will require your review to include the following features:
1. A summary of your understanding of the topic, aim, and main findings of the paper. Explain, briefly, what studies were conducted, how they were conducted, who participants were, what
the results showed, and what conclusions the authors make.
2. Your overall evaluation of the paper. what parts were strong and which ones were weaker (e.g.,
theory, method, analyses, discussion etc.)? What is your overall evaluation (is this a good contribution to the field, or is it possibly misleading/flawed/unethical)?
3. An explanation of the main contributions and/or problems. You should explain why you reached the evaluation you did (what is good, or flawed about the research?)
4. Any recommendations for authors or others. This could include suggestions for interpreting or following up the research (what should be done, or avoided, in the light of these findings?), or suggestions about what might have improved the content of the article (e.g. article would be better without the section on X; should have included explanation of Y, should have considered theory Z), or what might have improved the presentation (more detail of Z in the introduction would have been nice; clearer definitions of key terms or figure labelling).
5. A single-paragraph conclusion summarising your evaluation of the research (a ‘TL:DR’ version of
the review).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>