改变同行评议的文化,使心理科学更加包容和公平。

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-07 DOI:10.1037/xge0001461
Mariam Aly, Eliana Colunga, M J Crockett, Matthew Goldrick, Pablo Gomez, Franki Y H Kung, Paul C McKee, Miriam Pérez, Sarah M Stilwell, Amanda B Diekman
{"title":"改变同行评议的文化,使心理科学更加包容和公平。","authors":"Mariam Aly, Eliana Colunga, M J Crockett, Matthew Goldrick, Pablo Gomez, Franki Y H Kung, Paul C McKee, Miriam Pérez, Sarah M Stilwell, Amanda B Diekman","doi":"10.1037/xge0001461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Peer review is a core component of scientific practice. Although peer review ideally improves research and promotes rigor, it also has consequences for what types of research are published and cited and who wants to (and is able to) advance in research-focused careers. Despite these consequences, few reviewers or editors receive training or oversight to ensure their feedback is helpful, professional, and culturally sensitive. Here, we critically examine the peer-review system in psychology and neuroscience at multiple levels, from ideas to institutions, interactions, and individuals. We highlight initiatives that aim to change the normative negativity of peer review and provide authors with constructive, actionable feedback that is sensitive to diverse identities, methods, topics, and environments. We conclude with a call to action for how individuals, groups, and organizations can improve the culture of peer review. We provide examples of how changes in the peer-review system can be made with an eye to diversity (increasing the range of identities and experiences constituting the field), equity (fair processes and outcomes across groups), and inclusion (experiences that promote belonging across groups). These changes can improve scientists' experience of peer review, promote diverse perspectives and identities, and enhance the quality and impact of science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":"3546-3565"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science.\",\"authors\":\"Mariam Aly, Eliana Colunga, M J Crockett, Matthew Goldrick, Pablo Gomez, Franki Y H Kung, Paul C McKee, Miriam Pérez, Sarah M Stilwell, Amanda B Diekman\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001461\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Peer review is a core component of scientific practice. Although peer review ideally improves research and promotes rigor, it also has consequences for what types of research are published and cited and who wants to (and is able to) advance in research-focused careers. Despite these consequences, few reviewers or editors receive training or oversight to ensure their feedback is helpful, professional, and culturally sensitive. Here, we critically examine the peer-review system in psychology and neuroscience at multiple levels, from ideas to institutions, interactions, and individuals. We highlight initiatives that aim to change the normative negativity of peer review and provide authors with constructive, actionable feedback that is sensitive to diverse identities, methods, topics, and environments. We conclude with a call to action for how individuals, groups, and organizations can improve the culture of peer review. We provide examples of how changes in the peer-review system can be made with an eye to diversity (increasing the range of identities and experiences constituting the field), equity (fair processes and outcomes across groups), and inclusion (experiences that promote belonging across groups). These changes can improve scientists' experience of peer review, promote diverse perspectives and identities, and enhance the quality and impact of science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3546-3565\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001461\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001461","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

同行评议是科学实践的核心组成部分。虽然同行评议在理想上提高了研究水平,提高了研究的严谨性,但它也会影响到什么类型的研究被发表和引用,以及谁想要(并且能够)在以研究为重点的职业生涯中取得进步。尽管有这些后果,很少有审稿人或编辑接受培训或监督,以确保他们的反馈是有用的、专业的和文化敏感的。在这里,我们从多个层面对心理学和神经科学的同行评议系统进行了批判性的研究,从思想到机构、互动和个人。我们强调旨在改变同行评议的规范性消极性的倡议,并为作者提供建设性的、可操作的反馈,这些反馈对不同的身份、方法、主题和环境都很敏感。最后,我们呼吁个人、团体和组织如何改善同行评审的文化。我们提供了一些例子,说明如何在关注多样性(增加构成该领域的身份和经验的范围)、公平(跨群体的公平过程和结果)和包容(促进跨群体归属感的经历)的情况下,对同行评审系统进行改变。这些变化可以改善科学家对同行评议的体验,促进不同的观点和身份,提高科学的质量和影响。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science.

Peer review is a core component of scientific practice. Although peer review ideally improves research and promotes rigor, it also has consequences for what types of research are published and cited and who wants to (and is able to) advance in research-focused careers. Despite these consequences, few reviewers or editors receive training or oversight to ensure their feedback is helpful, professional, and culturally sensitive. Here, we critically examine the peer-review system in psychology and neuroscience at multiple levels, from ideas to institutions, interactions, and individuals. We highlight initiatives that aim to change the normative negativity of peer review and provide authors with constructive, actionable feedback that is sensitive to diverse identities, methods, topics, and environments. We conclude with a call to action for how individuals, groups, and organizations can improve the culture of peer review. We provide examples of how changes in the peer-review system can be made with an eye to diversity (increasing the range of identities and experiences constituting the field), equity (fair processes and outcomes across groups), and inclusion (experiences that promote belonging across groups). These changes can improve scientists' experience of peer review, promote diverse perspectives and identities, and enhance the quality and impact of science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Bypassing versus correcting misinformation: Efficacy and fundamental processes. Risky hybrid foraging: The impact of risk, reward value, and prevalence on foraging behavior in hybrid visual search. Shortcuts to insincerity: Texting abbreviations seem insincere and not worth answering. Confidence regulates feedback processing during human probabilistic learning. Does affective processing require awareness? On the use of the Perceptual Awareness Scale in response priming research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1