This paper investigates whether the quality and efficiency of peer review is more influenced by scientists' behaviour or by the type of scientific community structure (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous). We looked especially at the importance of reciprocity and fairness to ensure cooperation between everyone involved and the role of evaluation standards to reduce parochialism. We modelled peer review as a process based on knowledge asymmetries and subject to evaluation bias. We found that reciprocity can have a positive effect on peer review only when agents are not driven by self-interest motivation and are inspired by standards of fairness. Secondly, we found that in a strong competitive scientific landscape, high quality of peer review can be achieved when shared evaluation standards are supported by normative standards of conduct. Finally, we found that unequal resource allocation in science (e.g., reputation and funds) is the consequence of good peer review standards.
Peer review under the microscope : an agent-based model of scientific collaboration / F. Squazzoni, C. Gandelli (PROCEEDINGS - WINTER SIMULATION CONFERENCE). - In: Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) / [a cura di] C. Laroque, J. Himmelspach, R. Pasupathy. - Prima edizione. - [s.l] : IEEE, 2012. - ISBN 9781467347792. - pp. 1-12 (( convegno Winter Simulation Conference tenutosi a Berlin nel 2012 [10.1109/WSC.2012.6465283].
Peer review under the microscope : an agent-based model of scientific collaboration
F. Squazzoni
;
2012
Abstract
This paper investigates whether the quality and efficiency of peer review is more influenced by scientists' behaviour or by the type of scientific community structure (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous). We looked especially at the importance of reciprocity and fairness to ensure cooperation between everyone involved and the role of evaluation standards to reduce parochialism. We modelled peer review as a process based on knowledge asymmetries and subject to evaluation bias. We found that reciprocity can have a positive effect on peer review only when agents are not driven by self-interest motivation and are inspired by standards of fairness. Secondly, we found that in a strong competitive scientific landscape, high quality of peer review can be achieved when shared evaluation standards are supported by normative standards of conduct. Finally, we found that unequal resource allocation in science (e.g., reputation and funds) is the consequence of good peer review standards.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
SquazzoniGandelli2012WSCProceedings.pdf
accesso riservato
Tipologia:
Post-print, accepted manuscript ecc. (versione accettata dall'editore)
Dimensione
966.78 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
966.78 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
06465283.pdf
accesso riservato
Tipologia:
Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione
726.85 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
726.85 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.