Conflicting incentives risk analysis: A case study of the normative peer review process

Administrative Sciences

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 125-147

  Wangen, Gaute ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Conflicting incentives risk analysis; Decision making; Human factor; Motivation; Peer review; Risk management

Indexed keywords

EID: 85028631054     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20763387     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/admsci5030125     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Siponen, M.T.; Oinas-Kukkonen, H. A review of information security issues and respective research contributions. ACM Sigmis Database 2007, 38, 60–80.
2. Anderson, R. Why information security is hard—an economic perspective. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, 10–14 December 2001; pp. 358–365.
3. Grainger, D.W. Peer review as professional responsibility: A quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials 2007, 28, 5199–5203.
4. Taleb, N.N.; Sandis, C. The skin in the game heuristic for protection against tail events. Rev. Behav. Econ. 2014, 1, 1–21.
5. Ferguson, C.; Marcus, A.; Oransky, I. Publishing: The Peer-Review Scam. Nature 2014, 515, 480–482, doi: 10.1038/515480a.
6. Rajbhandari, L. Risk Analysis Using “Conflicting Incentives” as an alternative notion of Risk. Ph.D. Thesis, Gjøvik University College, Gjøvik, Norway, 2013.
7. Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative. NIST Special Publication 800-39, Managing Information Security Risks-Organization, Mission, and Information Systems View; Technical Report; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2008.
8. Wangen, G.; Snekkenes, E.A. A Comparison between Business Process Management and Information Security Management. In Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Proceedings of the 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, Warsaw, Poland, 7–10 September 2014; Ganzha, M., Maciaszek, L.A., Paprzycki, M., Eds.; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2014; Volume 2, pp. 901–910.
9. Andersen, B.; Fagerhaug, T. Root Cause Analysis: Simplified Tools and Techniques; ASQ Quality Press: Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2006.
10. Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice; Wiley-Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA, USA, 2007.
11. Leek, J.T.; Taub, M.A.; Pineda, F.J. Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e26895.
12. Dalkir, K. Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice; Elsevier Inc.: Burlington, MA, USA, 2005.
13. McClelland, D.C. Human Motivation; Cambridge University Press Archive: Cambridge, UK, 1987.
14. Chulef, A.S.; Read, S.J.; Walsh, D.A. A hierarchical taxonomy of human goals. Mot. Emot. 2001, 25, 191–232.
15. Pipkin, D.L. Halting the Hacker: A Practical Guide to Computer Security, 2nd ed.; Pearson Education: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
16. Maslow, A.H. A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 1943, 50, 370–396.
17. Snekkenes, E. Position Paper: Privacy Risk Analysis Is about Understanding Conflicting Incentives. In Policies and Research in Identity Management; Fischer-Haubner, S., Leeuw, E., Mitchell, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Volume 396, pp. 100–103.
18. De Rond, M.; Miller, A.N. Publish or Perish Bane or Boon of Academic Life? J. Manag. Inq. 2005, 14, 321–329.
19. Horrobin, D.F. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Jama 1990, 263, 1438–1441.
20. Mahoney, M.J. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cogn. Ther. Res. 1977, 1, 161–175.
21. Nickerson, R.S. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2, 175–220.
22. Eisenhardt, K.M. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 57–74.
23. García, J.A.; Rodriguez-Sánchez, R.; Fdez-Valdivia, J. The principal-agent problem in peer review. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2015, 66, 297–308.
24. Gold, N.; Colman, A.M.; Pulford, B.D. Normative theory in decision making and moral reasoning. Behav. Brain Sci. 2011, 34, 256–257.
25. Rajbhandari, L.; Snekkenes, E. Using Game Theory to Analyze Risk to Privacy: An Initial Insight; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; Volume 352, pp. 41–51.
26. Mitchell, R.K.; Agle, B.R.; Wood, D.J. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 853–886.
27. Aven, T.; Røed, W.; Wiencke, H.S. Risikoanalyse (Norwegian Ed); Prinsipper og Metoder, Med Anvendelser; Universitetsforlaget: Oslo, Norway, 2008.
28. Taleb, N.N. Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder; Random House LLC.: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
29. Groves, T. Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. Bmj 2010, 341, doi:10.1136/bmj.c6424.