All subjects · Psychology · WPS04 Clinical Psychology and Psychological Skills

Conventions of published research and peer review

Edexcel IAL Psychology · WPS04 Clinical Psychology and Psychological Skills

Spec 8.3.2 (and 9.1.15) asks you to know the conventions of published research (abstract, introduction, aims and hypotheses, method, results, discussion) and the process of peer review, and to justify why each exists.

Practise this in the app: instant marking and a fix for every mistake. Free, no email needed to start.

Practise this lesson

Sections of a report

Section	Contents	Why
Abstract	Short summary of aims, method, results and conclusions	Readers can judge relevance quickly
Introduction	Background theory and previous research leading to the aim	Shows why the study is needed
Aims and hypotheses	What is being tested; operationalised IV and DV; null hypothesis	Makes the test precise and falsifiable
Method	Design, participants and sampling, materials, procedure, ethics	Allows replication, which tests reliability
Results	Descriptive statistics, tables and graphs, inferential tests, qualitative themes	Shows the evidence objectively
Discussion	Findings related to hypotheses and past research, limitations, improvements, applications	Interprets results honestly

Peer review

Before publication, a journal editor sends the paper to independent experts in the same field (peers), usually anonymously.

Reviewers check the methods, analysis and conclusions, and whether the work is original and important.
They recommend acceptance, revision or rejection.

Purpose: to maintain quality, prevent fraud or poor research from being published, and help decide which research gets funding.

Evaluating peer review

Strength: improves the credibility and quality of published research, and the scientific status of psychology (9.3.5).
Weaknesses: reviewers may be biased against findings that challenge their own theories; anonymity can allow harsh or careless reviews; it is slow; and it favours significant results (publication bias, the 'file drawer' problem).
Errors still get through, and once published, findings are hard to remove.

Worked example

Why should a method section be detailed enough for replication?

Replication means repeating the study exactly.
If another researcher follows the same procedure and gets the same results, the findings are reliable.
If results cannot be replicated, the original may be due to chance or error.
So the method must report sample, materials, procedure and controls precisely.

Answer: Detailed methods allow replication, which tests reliability.

Key idea: Reports: abstract, introduction, aims and hypotheses, method, results, discussion, each with a purpose. Peer review: anonymous expert checking before publication; improves credibility but can be biased, slow and favour significant results.

Check yourself

Which section summarises the whole study briefly at the start?
- Discussion
- Abstract
- Method
- Introduction
Show answer
Abstract. The abstract is a short summary.
Which section must contain enough detail for replication?
- Abstract
- Discussion
- Introduction
- Method
Show answer
Method. The method describes exactly what was done.
Where would a researcher explain the limitations of their study?
- Abstract
- Discussion
- Results
- Method
Show answer
Discussion. The discussion interprets results and limitations.
Who carries out peer review?
- The researchers themselves
- The participants
- Independent experts in the same field
- Journalists
Show answer
Independent experts in the same field. Peers = fellow experts.
What is publication bias?
- The tendency for significant results to be published more than non-significant ones
- Bias against female researchers only
- Publishing results twice
- Journals refusing all research
Show answer
The tendency for significant results to be published more than non-significant ones. Non-significant results stay in the 'file drawer'.
Explain one reason why peer review is important.
Show answer
It means research is checked by independent experts before publication, so poor-quality or fraudulent research is less likely to be published, which increases credibility.. Expert checking maintains quality and credibility.

Practise with instant feedback

Sources

Last updated 8 November 2026. Spotted a mistake? Tell us.