Editorial behaviors in peer review

SpringerPlus

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 1-11

  Wang, Wei ^a   Kong, Xiangjie ^a   Zhang, Jun ^a   Chen, Zhen ^a   Xia, Feng ^a   Wang, Xianwen ^a  

^a DALIAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (China)

Author keywords

Agent based model; Editor; Referee

Indexed keywords

EID: 84976641061     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21931801     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2601-y     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Alberts B, Hanson B, Kelner KL (2008) Reviewing peer review. Science 321(5885):15
2. Allesina S (2012) Modeling peer review: an agent-based approach. Ideas Ecol Evol 5(2):27–35
3. Benos B, Dale J et al (2007) The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ 31(2):145–152
4. Bianchi SF (2015) Federico: peer review with multiple reviewers. CoMSES Computational Model Library. Retrieved from https://www.openabm.org/model/4718/version/1
5. Bornmann L (2011) Scientific peer review. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol 45(1):197–245
6. Cabotà JB, Grimaldo F, Squazzoni F (2014) Do editors have a silver bullet? An agent-based model of peer review. In: Proceedings 28th European conference on modelling and simulation
7. Crocker J, Cooper ML (2011) Addressing scientific fraud. Science 334(6060):1182–1182
8. Day TE (2015) The big consequences of small biases: a simulation of peer review. Res Policy 44(6):1266–1270
9. Edmonds B, Gilbert N, Ahrweiler P, Scharnhorst A (2011) Simulating the social processes of science. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 14(4):14
10. Gallo SA, Carpenter AS, Irwin D, McPartland CD, Travis J, Reynders S, Thompson LA, Glisson SR (2014) The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies. PloS One 9(9):106474
11. Gilbert N (1997) A simulation of the structure of academic science. Sociol Res Online 2(2). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/3.html
12. Hochberg ME, Chase JM, Gotelli NJ, Hastings A, Naeem S (2009) The tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ecol Lett 12(1):2–4
13. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Caelleigh AS (2003) Impartial judgment by the ‘gatekeepers’ of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv Health Sci Educ 8(1):75–96
14. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B (2013) Bias in peer review. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 64(1):2–17
15. Maner JK (2014) Let’s put our money where our mouth is if authors are to change their ways, reviewers and editors must change with them. Perspect Psychol Sci 9(3):343–351
16. Martins AC (2013) Modelling epistemic systems. Theor Simul Complex Soc Syst 52:19
17. Paolucci M, Grimaldo F (2014) Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism. Scientometrics 99(3):663–688
18. Petchey OL, Fox JW, Haddon L (2014) Imbalance in individual researcher’s peer review activities quantified for four British ecological society journals, 2003–2010. PloS One 9(3):92896
19. Plunk V (2013) Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342:60–65
20. Roebber PJ, Schultz DM (2011) Peer review, program officers and science funding. PloS One 6(4):18680
21. Schultz DM (2010) Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics 84(2):277–292
22. Souder L (2011) The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature. Learn Publ 24(1):55–72
23. Squazzoni F, Gandelli C (2012) Peer review under the microscope: an agent-based model of scientific collaboration. In: Proceedings of the Winter simulation conference, p 100
24. Squazzoni F, Gandelli C (2013) Opening the black-box of peer review: an agent-based model of scientist behaviour. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 16(2):3
25. Squazzoni F, Takács K (2011) Social simulation that ‘peers into peer review’. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 14(4):3
26. Thurner S, Hanel R (2011) Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: toward selection of the average. Eur Phys J B 84(4):707–711
27. van Lent M, Overbeke J, Out HJ (2014) Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals. PloS One 9(8):104846
28. Xiao Y, Dörfler F, van der Schaar M (2014) Incentive design in peer review: rating and repeated endogenous matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.2139