Peer review under the microscope. An agent-based model of scientific collaboration

Proceedings - Winter Simulation Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages

  Squazzoni, Flaminio ^a   Gandelli, Claudio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRESCIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGENT-BASED MODEL; EVALUATION STANDARD; HIGH QUALITY; PEER REVIEW; PROCESS-BASED; SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION; SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; STANDARDS;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84874686505     PISSN: 08917736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/WSC.2012.6465283     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Abbott, A. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Alberts, B., B. Hanson, K. L. Kelner. 2008. "Reviewing Peer Review." Science 321:15. (Pubitemid 351956216)
3. Azar, O. H. 2008. "Evolution of Social Norms with Heterogeneous Preferences: A General Model and an Application to the Academic Review Process." Journal of Economic Behavoir and Organization, 65:420-435.
4. Björk, B.-C., A. Roos, M. Lauri. 2009. "Scientific Journal Publishing - Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability." Information Research, 14, 1: http://informationr.net/ir/14-1/paper391.html.
5. Bornmann, L. 2011. "Scientific Peer Review." Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45:199-245.
6. Chang, J., C. Lai. 2001. "Is it worthwhile to pay referees?" Southern Economic Journal 68:457-463.
7. Couzin, J. 2006. ".... and how the Problems Eluded Peer Reviewers and Editors." Science 311:614-615.
8. Crocker, J., M. L. Cooper. 2011. "Addressing Scientific Fraud." Science 334(6060):1182.
9. Gewin, V. 2012. "Uncovering misconduct." Nature 485: 137-139.
10. Laband, D. N. and J. M. Piette. 1994. "Favoritism Versus Search of Good Papers. Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors." Journal of Political Economy 102:194-203.
11. Lamont, M. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Martins, A. 2010. "Modeling Scientific Agents for a Better Science." Advances in Complex Systems 13(4):519-533.
13. Northcraft, G. B. and A. E. Tenbrunsel. 2011. "Effective Matrices, Decision Frames, and Cooperation in Volunteer Dilemmas: A Theoretical Perspective on Academic Peer Review." Organization Science 22(5):1277-1285.
14. Roebber, P. J., D. M. Schultz. 2011. "Peer Review, Program Officers and Science Funding." PLoS ONE 6(4):e18680: http://www.plosone.org/article/ info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0018680.
15. Seinen, I. And A. Schram. 2004. "Social Status and Group Norms: Indirect Reciprocity in a Repeated Helping Experiment." European Economic Review 50(3):581-602.
16. Smith. R. 2006. "Peer Review. A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99:759-760.
17. Squazzoni, F. 2010. "Peering into Peer Review." Sociologica 3: http://www.sociologica.mulino.it/doi/10.2383/33640.
18. Squazzoni F, G. Bravo and K. Takács. 2012. "Does Incentive Provision Increase the Quality of Peer Review? An Experimental Study." Research Policy, In Press, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.014.
19. Squazzoni, F. and C. Gandelli. 2012. "Saint Matthews Strikes Again. An Agent-Based Model of Peer Review and the Scientific Community Structures." Journal of Informetrics 6:265-275.
20. Squazzoni, F. and Takács, K. 2011. "Social Simulation that 'Peers into Peer Review'." Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 14(4) 3: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/14/4/3.html.
21. Thurner, S. and R. Hanel. 2011. "Peer Review in a World with Rational Scientists: Toward Selection of the Average." The European Physical Journal B 84:707-711.