A simulation of disagreement for control of rational cheating in peer review

Advances in Complex Systems

Volumn 16, Issue 7, 2013, Pages

  Grimaldo, Francisco ^a   Paolucci, Mario ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^b INSTITUTE OF COGNITIVE SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES   (Italy)

Author keywords

agent based simulation; Artificial social systems; peer review; trust reliability and reputation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879650706     PISSN: 02195259     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S0219525913500045     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Allesina, S., Modeling peer review: An agent-based approach, Ideas Ecol Evol 5 (2012)
2. Bonabeau, E., Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99 (2002) 7280-7287
3. Bordini, R. H., Ḧubner, J. F. andWooldridge, M., Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason (John Wiley & Sons, 2007)
4. Bornmann, L., Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (2011) 199-245
5. Bornmann, L., Nast, I. and Daniel, H.-D., Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication, Scientometrics 77 (2008) 415-432
6. Brabazon, T., The google effect: Googling, blogging, wikis and the flattening of expertise, Libri 56 (2006) 157-167
7. Bruckner, E., Ebeling, W. and Scharnhorst, A., The application of evolution models in scientometrics, Scientometrics 18 (1990) 21-41
8. Buecheler, T., Sieg, J. H., F̈uchslin, R. M. and Pfeifer, R., Crowdsourcing, Open Innovation and Collective Intelligence in the Scientific Method: A Research Agenda and Operational Framework (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2011), pp. 679-686
9. Brner, K., Atlas of Science: Visualizing What We Know (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2010)
10. Brner, K. and Scharnhorst, A., Visual conceptualizations and models of science, J. Inform. 3 (2009) 161-172
11. Callahan, D., Rational cheating: Everyone's doing it, Journal of Forensic Accounting (2004) 575+
12. Casati, F., Marchese, M., Ragone, A. and Turrini, M., Is peer review any good? A quantitative analysis of peer review, Technical report, Ingegneria e Scienza dell'Informazione, University of Trento (2009), http://eprints.biblio. unitn.it/archive/ 00001654/
13. Cole, S., Cole, J. R. and Simon, G. A., Chance and consensus in peer review, Science 214 (1981) 881-886
14. Conte, R. and Castelfranchi, C., Cognitive Social Action (UCL Press, London, 1995)
15. Conte, R., Paolucci, M. and Sabater Mir, J., Reputation for innovating social networks, Adv. Complex Syst. 11(2) (2008) 303-320
16. Egghe, L. and Rousseau, R., Introduction to Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science (Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990)
17. Frishauf, P., Reputation systems: A new vision for publishing and peer review, J. Participatory Med. 1 (2009) e13a+
18. Gilbert, N., A simulation of the structure of academic science, Sociol. Res. 2 (1997) 1-25
19. Goffman, W., Mathematical approach to the spread of scientific ideas - the history of mast cell research, Nature 212 (1966) 449-452
20. Grimaldo Moreno, F., Paolucci, M. and Conte, R., A Proposal for Agent Simulation of Peer Review, Social Science Research Network Working Paper Series (23 September 2010). Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1681422
21. Helbing, D., Pluralistic modeling of complex systems, Sci. Cult. 76 (2010) 315-329
22. Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W. and Bond, N., A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: The effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A, Stat. Soc. 166 (2003) 279-300
23. Lotka, A. J., The frequency distribution of scientific productivity, J. Washington Acad. Sci. 16 (1926) 317-324
24. Neff, B. D. and Olden, J. D., Is peer review a game of chance? BioScience 56 (2006) 333-340
25. Newman, M. E. J., Complex systems: A survey, Am. J. Phys. 79 (2011) 800-810
26. Pariser, E., The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You (Penguin Press, NY, 2011)
27. Payette, N., For an integrated approach to agent-based modeling of science, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 14 (2011) 9
28. Ragone, A., Mirylenka, K., Casati, F. and Marchese, M., A quantitative analysis of peer review (2011). F. Grimaldo and M. Paolucci
29. Rao, A. S., AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language, in Proc. MAAMAW'96, ed. Verlag, S., number 1038 in LNAI (1996), pp. 42-55
30. Rodriguez, M. A., Bollen, J. and Van de Sompel, H., A practical ontology for the large-scale modeling of scholarly artifacts and their usage, in Proc. 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conf. Digital libraries, JCDL'07 (ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2007), ISBN 978-1-59593-644-8, pp. 278-287, doi:10.1145/1255175.1255229, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1255175.1255229
31. Roebber, P. J. and Schultz, D. M., Peer review, program officers and science funding, PLoS ONE 6 (2011) e18680+
32. Scharnhorst, A., B̈orner, K. and Besselaar, P. V. D. (eds.), Models of Science Dynamics: Encounters Between Complexity Theory and Information Sciences (Springer, Berlin, 2012)
33. Schultz, D. M., Are three heads better than two? how the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate, Scientometrics 84 (2010) 277-292
34. Smith, R., Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals, JRSM 99 (2006) 178-182
35. Squazzoni, F. and Gandelli, C., Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure, J. Inform. 6 (2012) 265-275
36. Sterman, J. D., The growth of knowledge: Testing a theory of scientific revolutions with a formal model, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 28 (1985) 93-122
37. Sun, R. and Naveh, I., Cognitive simulation of academic science, in Int. Joint Conf. Neural Networks, IJCNN 2009, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 14-19 June 2009 (IEEE, 2009), pp. 3011-3017, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2009.5178638
38. Surowiecki, J., The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations (Doubleday, 2004)
39. Thurner, S. and Hanel, R., Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average, Eur. Phys. J. B, Condens. Matter 84 (2011) 707. 1350004-24