Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 113, Issue 30, 2016, Pages 8414-8419

  Balietti, Stefano ^a,b,c   Goldstone, Robert L ^d   Helbing, Dirk ^e  

^a NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Competition; Creativity; Fairness; Innovation; Peer review

Indexed keywords

ART; ARTICLE; COMPETITION; COOPERATION; CREATIVITY; EXPECTATION; GAME; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REWARD; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; HUMAN RELATION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE;

COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; CREATIVITY; GAMES, EXPERIMENTAL; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; PEER REVIEW; PHOTIC STIMULATION; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84979642641     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1603723113     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bull C, Schotter A, Weigelt K (1987) Tournaments and piece rates: An experimental study. J Polit Econ 95(1):1-33.
2. Bonner SE, Sprinkle G (2002) The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Account Organ Soc 27(4):303-345.
3. Byron K, Khazanchi S (2012) Rewards and creative performance: A meta- Analytic test of theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychol Bull 138(4):809-830.
4. Gneezy U, Rustichini A (2000) A fine is a price. J Legal Stud 29(1):1-17.
5. Gagné M, Deci E (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. J Organ Behav 26(4):331-362.
6. Dube J, Luo X, Fang Z (2015) Self-signalling and prosocial behavior: A cause marketing mobile field experiment. NBER working paper 21475. Available at www.nber.org/papers/w21475.
7. Amabile T (1998) How to kill creativity. HBS Rev Sep-Oct:77-87.
8. Baumeister R, Showers C (1986) A review of paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in sports and mental tests. Eur J Soc Psychol 16(4):361-383.
9. Beilock SL, Carr TH (2001) On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? J Exp Psychol Gen 130(4):701-725.
10. Harbring C, Irlenbusch B (2008) How many winners are good to have?: On tournaments with sabotage. J Econ Behav Organ 65(3):682-702.
11. Gürtler O, Münster J (2010) Sabotage in dynamic tournaments. J Math Econ 46(2): 179-190.
12. Helbing D (2007) Managing Complexity: Insights, Concepts, Applications (Springer, New York).
13. Scott W (1974) Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the journal of personality and social psychology. Am Psychol 29(9):698-702.
14. Fiske D, Fogg L (1990) But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. Am Psychol 45(5):591-598.
15. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN (2000) Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123(Pt 9):1964-1969.
16. Mahoney M (1977) Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognit Ther Res 1(2):161-175.
17. Mutz R, Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2015) Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions: A multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex- Ante and ex-post peer evaluation data from the austrian science fund. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 66(11):2321-2339.
18. 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.
19. Squazzoni F, Gandelli C (2012) Saint matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure. J Informetrics 6(2):265-275.
20. Thorngate W, Chowdhury W (2014) Advances in Social Simulation (Springer, New York), pp 177-188.
21. Amabile TM, Hennessey BA, Grossman BS (1986) Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(1):14-23.
22. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Marx W, Schier H, Daniel HD (2011) A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: Do the editors of a high profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication? J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 174(4):857-879.
23. Chernoff H (1973) The use of faces to represent points in K-dimensional space graphically. J Am Stat Assoc 68(342):361-368.
24. Sprouse J (2011) A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behav Res Methods 43(1):155-167.
25. Salganik MJ, Dodds PS, Watts DJ (2006) Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311(5762):854-856.
26. Sawyer R (2011) Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, UK).
27. Fang F, Casadevall A (2015) Competitive science: Is competition ruining science? Infect Immun 83(4):1229-1233.
28. Andreasen NC, Ramchandran K (2012) Creativity in art and science: Are there two cultures? Dialogues Clin Neurosci 14(1):49-54.
29. Amabile T (1983) The Social Psychology of Creativity (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).
30. Simonton D (1999) Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process darwinian? Psychol Inq 10(4):309-328.
31. Simonton DK (2009) Varieties of (scientific) creativity a hierarchical model of domainspecific disposition, development, and achievement. Perspect Psychol Sci 4(5):441-452.
32. Simon H (2001) Creativity in the arts and the sciences. Kenyon Review 23(2):203-220.
33. Latane B, Bourgeois M (2001) Handbook of social psychology. Group Processes, eds Tindale R, Hogg M (Blackwell, Malden, MA), Vol 4, pp 235-258.
34. Kenrick DT, Li NP, Butner J (2003) Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychol Rev 110(1):3-28.
35. Mason WA, Conrey FR, Smith ER (2007) Situating social influence processes: Dynamic, multidirectional flows of influence within social networks. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 11(3): 279-300.
36. Lorenz J, Rauhut H, Schweitzer F, Helbing D (2011) How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(22):9020-9025.
37. Tajfel H, Turner J (1986) Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds Worchel S, Austin L (Nelson-Hall, Chicago), pp 7-24.
38. Petty R, Fleming MA, Fabrigar L (1999) The review process at pspb: Correlates of interreviewer agreement and manuscript acceptance. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25(2):188-203.
39. Thorngate W, Dawes R, Foddy M (2011) Judging Merit (Psychology Press, New York).
40. Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I (2014) Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature 515(7528):480-482.
41. Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2009) The luck of the referee draw: The effect of exchanging reviews. Learn Publ 22(2):117-125.
42. Boudreau K, Lacetera N, Lakhani K (2011) Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Manage Sci 57(5):843-863.
43. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H (2014) Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(16):5773-5777.
44. Schekman R (2013) How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science. Available at www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-naturescience-cell-damage-science. Accessed 15 April 2016.
45. Anderson MS, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson BC (2007) The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships. Sci Eng Ethics 13(4):437-461.
46. Siler K, Lee K, Bero L (2015) Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(2):360-365.
47. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036-1039.
48. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(42):17028-17033.
49. Butler D (2010) Journals step up plagiarism policing. Nature 466(7303):167.
50. Azoulay P, Graff Zivin J, Manso G (2011) Incentives and creativity: Evidence from the academic life sciences. Rand J Econ 42(3):527-554.