Assessment Task 3
Peer Review in Science
Peer review in Science provides assurance that published research meets minimum standards for scientific quality. Peer review is important as it:
- Record a collective body of knowledge.
- Journals are a centerpiece of the scientific enterprise and serve as a focal point for the description of scientific results.
- Journal articles supply information that helps scientists to develop new hypotheses, and they provide a foundation on which new scientific discoveries and inventions are built.
- Moves Science forward
Other Sources of Scientific Information
In February 2024, The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) published their “How we access news” report. This report showed
- 20% Australians nominated social media as their main source of news in 2023.
- 46% of 18-24 year olds nominated social media as their main source of news.
- 26% of respondents nominated free to air television as the most common source of news.
- 52% of Australians over 75 read a newspaper once per week.
Depth Study
- Choose a contemporary scientific issue and how an issue can be portrayed differently in mainstream media vs the wider scientific community.
- Investigate the accuracy of the information
- Validity of data o Reliability of Information Sources
- What impacts can the different standards of information have on people’s understanding of the scientific issue and what are the implications of this?
Summary of Assessment Requirements
This assessment focuses on developing students’ understanding of peer review in science, its role in maintaining the quality of scientific research, and how scientific information is communicated differently across various platforms. Students are required to:
Key Requirements
- Explain the significance of peer review, including how it ensures scientific quality, builds a collective body of knowledge, and supports scientific advancements.
- Analyse alternative sources of scientific information, using recent datasuch as the 2024 ACMA “How We Access News” reportto show how audiences today consume science-related news.
- Choose a contemporary scientific issue and compare how it is portrayed in:
- Mainstream media
- The scientific community
- Investigate the accuracy, validity, and reliability of information across these sources.
- Discuss the impact of differing standards of information, explaining how public understanding, misconceptions, or behaviours may be influenced.
- Demonstrate critical thinking, by evaluating the implications of misinformation or oversimplified reporting.
The final output must show clear analysis, evidence-based evaluation, and the ability to differentiate between peer-reviewed science and popular media reporting.
How the Academic Mentor Guided the Student: Step-by-Step Process
The Academic Mentor assisted the student by breaking the task into structured, manageable steps, ensuring clarity in both research and writing.
Step 1: Understanding the Core Concept – Peer Review
The mentor first guided the student to clearly understand what peer review is and why it matters.
They reviewed:
- Why peer-reviewed journals ensure scientific quality
- Their role in building collective knowledge
- How peer review drives progress by enabling new discoveries
This formed the conceptual foundation for the assignment’s introductory section.
Step 2: Reviewing Alternative Information Sources
Next, the mentor helped the student interpret the ACMA 2024 report, explaining trends in how Australians consume scientific information.
Together, they analysed:
- The rise of social media as a dominant news source
- Differences in media consumption across age groups
- The implications for accuracy and reliability
This step ensured that the student understood the context in which science reaches the general public.
Step 3: Selecting a Contemporary Scientific Issue
The mentor guided the student to pick an issue that:
- Has strong scientific literature (peer-reviewed sources)
- Is frequently featured in mainstream media
- Shows clear contrasts in reporting styles
Examples considered included climate change, vaping and youth health, vaccine updates, AI in healthcare, etc.
Once chosen, the mentor helped refine the scope to avoid overly broad analysis.
Step 4: Analysing Media vs Scientific Portrayal
The mentor then demonstrated how to compare two types of sources:
- A peer-reviewed scientific article
- A mainstream media article covering the same issue
Guidance included:
- Identifying sensationalism or oversimplification in media
- Highlighting methodological detail and evidence in scientific papers
- Evaluating accuracy, validity, and reliability of both sources
This became the core analytical section.
Step 5: Assessing Impacts on Public Understanding
The student was instructed to explore how these differences influence:
- Public perception
- Decision-making
- Behaviour
- Spread of misconceptions
- Trust in science
Examples and real-world implications were encouraged to strengthen depth of analysis.
Step 6: Bringing It All Together
Finally, the mentor guided the student in structuring a strong conclusion that:
- Summarised the importance of peer-reviewed science
- Acknowledged the rolebut also limitationsof media
- Emphasised why critical evaluation of sources is essential
The mentor also checked clarity, flow, referencing, and alignment with marking criteria.
