https://library.icmglt.org/files/original/51dc8e01655c81ba10aa64fde7962ae7.jpg 433f7b95c38702046b64cdcb43aad458 https://library.icmglt.org/files/original/89d2d58efc33baaa5132b463121bc271.pdf 799212cc5cbf7198f4ca0d2ff4cc002b Electronic Resource View Source <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000322">https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000322</a> Document Type Journal article Author(s) Victoria Clarke, Virginia Braun, Jeffery Adams, Jane E. M. Callaghan, Andrea LaMarre, Joanna Semlyen Volume Vol. 12 Issue No. 1 Publisher American Psychological Association Journal Name Qualitative Psychology Publication Date 2025 ISBN 23263601 Language English Access Open Access Abstract Although peer review is one of the central pillars of academic publishing, qualitative researchers’ experiences of this process have been largely overlooked. Existing research and commentary have focused on peer reviewers’ comments on qualitative articles, which are often described as indicative of a quantitative mindset or hostility to nonpositivist qualitative research. We extend this literature by focusing on qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent reviewer and editor comments—comments that are incommensurate with the conceptual foundations of the reviewed research. Qualitative researchers (N = 163) from a range of health and social science disciplines, including psychology, responded to a brief qualitative survey. Most contributors reported that peer reviewers and editors universalized the assumptions and expectations of postpositivist research and reporting. Some also reported that peer reviewers and editors universalized the norms and values particular to specific qualitative approaches. Contributors were concerned that peer reviewers often accept review invitations when they lack relevant methodological expertise and editors often select peer reviewers without such expertise. In response to methodologically incongruent comments, many contributors described a process of initially “pushing back” and explaining why these comments were incongruent with their research. When this educative approach was unsuccessful, some knowingly compromised the methodological integrity of their research and acquiesced to reviewer and editor requests. Earlier career researchers especially highlighted the powerlessness they felt in the peer review process in the context of a “publish or perish” academic climate. We end by outlining contributors’ recommendations for improving the methodological integrity of the peer review of qualitative research. Cataloger Haley Lesemann Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Being Really Confidently Wrong: Qualitative researchers' experiences of methodologically incongruent peer review feedback Subject The topic of the resource Psychology--Research--Methodology Professional Development Psychology Social and Behavioral Sciences Social Sciences