When competition is pushed too hard. An agent-based model of strategic behaviour of referees in peer review

Proceedings - 27th European Conference on Modelling and Simulation, ECMS 2013

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 881-887

  Cabotà, Juan Bautista ^a   Grimaldo, Francisco ^a   Squazzoni, Flaminio ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRESCIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Agent based model; Competition; Fairness; Peer review; Rational cheating; Referees

Indexed keywords

AUTONOMOUS AGENTS; COMPETITION; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; EFFICIENCY; SIMULATION PLATFORM;

AGENT-BASED MODEL; FAIRNESS; PEER REVIEW; RATIONAL CHEATING; REFEREES;

REVIEWS;

EID: 84900323771     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.7148/2013-0881     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Allesina, S. 2012 "Modeling Peer Review: An Agent-Based Approach". Ideas in Ecology and Evolution , 5, 2, 27-35.
2. Barabási, A.-L., Song, C. and Wang, D. 2012. "Handful of Papers Dominates Citation". Nature 491, 40.
3. Bornmann, L. 2011 "Scientific Peer Review". Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 199-245.
4. Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.-D. 2007. Convergent Validation of Peer Review Decisions Using the H Index: Extent of and Reasons for Type I and Type II errors. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 204-213.
5. Callahan, D. 2004. "Rational cheating: Everyone's doing it". Journal of Forensic Accounting, 5, 577-580.
6. Casati, F., M. Marchese, A. Ragone and M. Turrini. 2009. "Is Peer Review Any Good? A Quantitative Analysis of Peer Review". DISI University of Trento, Technical Report # DISI-09-045, accessible at: 〈http://eprints. biblio.unitn.it/archive/00001654/〉.
7. Crocker, J., M. L. Cooper. 2011. "Addressing Scientific Fraud". Science, 334 (6060), 1182.
8. Edmonds, B., Gilbert, N., Ahrweiler, P., Scharnhorst, A. 2011. Simulating the Social Processes of Science. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 14(4) 14: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/14/4/14.html.
9. Fanelli, D. 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data". PLoS ONE 5(4): e10271.
10. Grimaldo, F. and Paolucci, M. 2013. "A Simulation of Disagreement for Control of Rational Cheating in Peer Review. Advances in Complex Systems, forthcoming.
11. 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.
12. Lamont, M. 2009. How Professors Think. Inside the Curious Worlds of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Laudel, G. and J. Gläeser. 2006. Tensions between Evaluations and Communication Practices. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28: 289-295.
14. Merton, R. K. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Payette, N. 2012. "Agent-Based Models of Science". In A. Scharnhorst, K. Bömner & P. van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of Science Dynamics, Complexity Series. Springer.
16. Roebber, P. J. and D. M. Schultz, 2011. "Peer Review, Program Officers and Science Funding". Plos One, 6, 4, e18680, accessible at: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0018680.
17. 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.
18. Squazzoni, F. and C. Gandelli. 2013. "Opening the Black Box of Peer Review. An Agent-Based Model of Scientist Behaviour. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 16(2) 3: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/2/3. html.
19. Squazzoni, F. and K. Takács. 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.
20. 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.
21. Tol, R. S. J. 2013. The Matthew Effect for Cohorts of Economists. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 522-527.