Is three better than one? simulating the effect of reviewer selection and behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review

Proceedings - Winter Simulation Conference

Volumn 2016-February, Issue , 2016, Pages 4081-4089

  Bianchi, Federico ^a   Squazzoni, Flaminio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRESCIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION;

PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH ACTIVITIES; RESOURCE DRAIN; SELECTION MECHANISM; SYSTEM LEVELS;

EFFICIENCY;

EID: 84962920494     PISSN: 08917736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/WSC.2015.7408561     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Alberts, B., B. Hanson, and K. L. Kelner. 2008. Reviewing Peer Review. Science 321:15.
2. Allesina, S. 2012. Modeling Peer Review: An Agent-Based Approach, Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 5 (2): 27-35.
3. Birukou A, J. R. Wakeling, C. Bartolini, F. Casati, M. Marchese, K. Mirylenka, N. Osman, A. Ragone, C. Sierra, and A Wassef. 2011. Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation, Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience.
4. Bornmann, L. 2011. Scientific Peer Review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45:199-245.
5. Couzin-Frankel, J. 2013. Secretive and Subjective, Peer Review Proves Resistant to Study. Science 341: 1331.
6. Crocker,J' and M. L. Cooper. 2011. Addressing Scientific Fraud. Science 334 (6060):1182.
7. Gewin, V. 2012. Uncovering Misconduct. Nature 485:137-139.
8. Grimaldo F., M. Paolucci. 2014. A Simulation of Disagreement for Control of Rational Cheating in Peer Review, Advances in Complex Systems, 99: 663-688.
9. Lee, C. J., C. R. Sugimoto, G. Zhang, and B. Cronin. 2013. Bias in Peer Review, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64: 2-17.
10. Leek, J. T., M. A. Taub, and F. J. Pineda. 2011. Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy, PLoS ONE 6 (11): e26897.
11. Paolucci M., F. Grimaldo. 2014. Mechanism Change in a Simulation of Peer Review: From Junk Support to Elitism, Scientometrics, 99: 663-688.
12. Payette, N. 2012. Agent-Based Models of Science. In Scharnhorst, A, K. Borner and P. Van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of Science Dynamics: Encounters between Complexity Theory and Information Sciences. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.
13. 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%2F1 0.1371 %2Fjournal.pone.0018680.
14. 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.
15. Squazzoni, F., G. Bravo and K. Takacs, K. 2013. Does Incentive Provision Increase the Quality of Peer Review? An Experimental Study. Research Policy 42 (1): 287-294.
16. Squazzoni, F., C. Gandelli. 2012. Saint Matthews Strikes Again. An Agent-Based Model of Peer Review and the Scientific Community Structures. Journal ofInformetrics 6:265-275.
17. Squazzoni, F., 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.ukl16/2/3.html
18. Squazzoni, F., K. Takacs. 2011. Social Simulation that 'Peers into Peer Review'. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 14 (4) 3: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.ukl14/4/3.html.
19. Thurner, S., R. Hanel. 2011. Peer Review in a World with Rational Scientists: Toward Selection of the Average. The European Physical Journal B 84:707-711.