This paper looks at peer review as a cooperation dilemma through a game-theory framework. We built an agent-based model to estimate how much the quality of peer review is influenced by different resource allocation strategies followed by scientists dealing with multiple tasks, i.e., publishing and reviewing. We assumed that scientists were sensitive to acceptance or rejection of their manuscripts and the fairness of peer review to which they were exposed before reviewing. We also assumed that they could be realistic or excessively over-confident about the quality of their manuscripts when reviewing. Furthermore, we assumed they could be sensitive to competitive pressures provided by the institutional context in which they were embedded. Results showed that the bias and quality of publications greatly depend on reviewer motivations but also that context pressures can have a negative effect. However, while excessive competition can be detrimental to minimising publication bias, a certain level of competition is instrumental to ensure the high quality of publication especially when scientists accept reviewing for reciprocity motives.

The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures / F. Bianchi, F. Grimaldo, G. Bravo, F. Squazzoni. - In: SCIENTOMETRICS. - ISSN 0138-9130. - 116:3(2018 Sep 01), pp. 1401-1420. [10.1007/s11192-018-2825-4]

The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures

F. Bianchi
Primo
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
F. Squazzoni
Ultimo
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2018-09-01

Abstract

This paper looks at peer review as a cooperation dilemma through a game-theory framework. We built an agent-based model to estimate how much the quality of peer review is influenced by different resource allocation strategies followed by scientists dealing with multiple tasks, i.e., publishing and reviewing. We assumed that scientists were sensitive to acceptance or rejection of their manuscripts and the fairness of peer review to which they were exposed before reviewing. We also assumed that they could be realistic or excessively over-confident about the quality of their manuscripts when reviewing. Furthermore, we assumed they could be sensitive to competitive pressures provided by the institutional context in which they were embedded. Results showed that the bias and quality of publications greatly depend on reviewer motivations but also that context pressures can have a negative effect. However, while excessive competition can be detrimental to minimising publication bias, a certain level of competition is instrumental to ensure the high quality of publication especially when scientists accept reviewing for reciprocity motives.
Peer review; Cooperation; Game theory; Scientist strategies; Agent-based model
Settore SPS/07 - Sociologia Generale
http://www.springerlink.com/content/0138-9130
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Bianchi2018ScientometricsPeerReviewGame.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 965.42 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
965.42 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2434/625967
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 21
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 22
social impact