Social simulation that 'peers into peer review'

JASSS

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2011, Pages

  Squazzoni, Flaminio ^a   Takács, Károly ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRESCIA   (Italy)

^b INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Peer Review; Science Policy; Selection Biases; Social Norms; Social Simulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 81355154264     PISSN: 14607425     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.18564/jasss.1821     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. ALBERTS, B., Hanson, B., and Kelner, K. L. (2008) Reviewing Peer Review. Science 321, p. 15. [doi:10.1126/science.1162115]
2. AXELROD, R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York, Basic Books.
3. AXELROD, R. (1986) An Evolutionary Approach to Norms. American Political Science Review, 80, pp. 1095-1111. [doi:10.2307/1960858]
4. AXELROD, R. (1997) The Complexity of Cooperation. Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press.
5. BJÖRK, B.-C., Roos, A., and Lauri, M. (2009) Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability. Information Research 14, 1. http://informationr.net/ir/14-1/paper391.html
6. BORNMANN, L. and Daniel, H.-D. (2005) Selection of Research Fellowship Recipients by Committee Peer Review. Reliability, Fairness and Predictive Validity of Board of Trustees' Decisions. Scientometrics 63, 2, pp. 297-320. [doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0214-2]
7. COLEMAN, J. S. (1986) Social Structure and the Emergence of Norms among Rational Actors. In: Diekmann, A. and Mitter, P. (eds.): Paradoxical Effects of Social Behavior. Essays in Honor of Anatol Rapoport. Heidelberg, Physica.
8. DURANT, J. and Ibrahim, A. (2011) Celebrating the Culture of Science. Science, 331, p. 1242. [doi:10.1126/science.1204773]
9. COUZIN, J. (2006)... And How the Problems Eluded Peer Reviewers and Editors. Science 311, pp. 614-615. [doi:10.1126/science.311.5757.23]
10. GINTIS, H. (2000) Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206, pp. 169-179. [doi:10.1006/jtbi.2000.2111]
11. GOLDSWORTY, J. (2009) Research Grant Mania. Australian Universities Review 50, 2, pp.: 17-24.
12. GORDON, R. and Poulin, B. J. (2009) Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 16, 1: 13-40.
13. GRAINGER, D. W. (2007) Peer Review as Professional Responsibility: A Quality Control System Only as Good as the Participants. Biomaterials, 28, pp. 5199-5203. [doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.004]
14. HAUSER, M. and Fehr, E. (2007) An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem. PLOS Biology 5: e107. [doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050107]
15. HORROBIN, D. F. (2001) Something Rotten at the Core of Science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 22, 2, pp. 51-52. [doi:10.1016/S0165-6147(00)01618-7]
16. KASSIRER, J. P., Campion E. W. (1994) Peer Review: Crude and Understudied. Journal of American Medical Association, 272, pp. 96-97. [doi:10.1001/jama.272.2.96]
17. LAMONT, M. (2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. MABE, M. and Amin, M. (2001) Growth Dynamics of Scholarly and Scientific Journals. Scientometrics 51, 1, pp. 147-162. [doi:10.1023/A:1010520913124]
19. MARTINS, A. (2010) Modeling Scientific Agents for a Better Science. Advances in Complex Systems, 13(4), pp. 519-533. [doi:10.1142/S0219525910002694]
20. MAYO N. E., Brophy, J., Goldberg, M. S., Klein, M. B., Miller, S., Platt, R. W., and Ritchie, J. (2006) Peering at Peer Review Revealed High Degree of Chance Associated with Funding of Grant Application. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59, pp. 842-848. [doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.007]
21. MERTON, R. K. (1973) The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. NATURE (2006) Peer Review and Fraud. Nature 444, pp. 971-972. [doi:10.1038/444971b]
23. OBRECHT, M., Tibelius, K. and D'Aloiso, G. (2007) Examining the Value Added by Committee Discussion in the Review of Applications for Research Award. Research Evaluation 16 pp. 79-91. [doi:10.3152/095820207X223785]
24. PULVERER, B. (2010) Transparency Showcases Strength of Peer Review. Nature 468, pp. 29-31. [doi:10.1038/468029a]
25. SCHAFFER, A. (2009) America's Got Science Talent: The Biomedical Research Community Goes Bananas for $200 Million in Stimulus Funding. " Slate, April 29. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/04/americas_got_science_talent.html
26. SCHWARTZ, S. J. and Zamboanga, B. L. (2009) The Peer-Review and Editorial System. Ways to Fix Something that Might Be Broken. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), pp. 54-61. [doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01106.x]
27. SMITH, R. (1997) Peer Review: Reform or Revolution? Time to Open the Black Box of Peer Review. British Medicine Journal 315, pp. 759-760.
28. SMITH, R. (2006) Peer Review. A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99, pp. 759-760. [doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178]
29. SPIER, R. E. (2002) The History of Peer Review. Trends in Biotechnology, 20, 8, pp. 357-358. [doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6]
30. SQUAZZONI, F. (2010) Peering into Peer Review. Sociologica, 3, doi: 10.2383/33640, accessible at: http://www.sociologica.mulino.it/doi/10.2383/33640
31. SQUAZZONI, F. and Boero, R. (2010) 'Complexity-Friendly Policy Modelling'. In Ahrweiler, P. (ed.), Innovation in Complex Social Systems, Routledge, London, 2010, pp. 290-299
32. THURNER, S. and Hanel, R. (2010) Peer-Review in a World with Rational Scientists: Toward Selection of the Average. arXiv:1008.4324v1. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.4324v1.pdf
33. WARE, M. (2007) Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community-An International Study. Bristol: Mark Ware Consulting. http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf
34. WEDEKIND, C. and Milinski, M. (2000) Cooperation Through Image Scoring in Humans. Science, 288, pp. 850-852. [doi:10.1126/science.288.5467.850]