首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure
Authors:Flaminio Squazzoni  Claudio Gandelli
Affiliation:1. Department of Information Resource Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China;2. School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China;3. School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China;1. Public Policy and Global Affairs Division, Nanyang Technological University, 14 Nanyang Drive, 637332, Singapore;2. WISE Lab, School of Humanities and Social Science, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China;1. Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, Heisenbergstr. 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany;2. Division for Science and Innovation Studies, Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society, Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539 Munich, Germany;1. University of Antwerp, Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM), Middelheimlaan 1, 2020 Antwerpen, Belgium;2. UNU-MERIT, Boschstraat 24, 6211 AX Maastricht, The Netherlands;1. School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA;2. Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands;1. Departamento de Estructura de la Materia, Física Térmica y Electrónica and GISC, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Plaza de las Ciencias 3, 28040, Madrid, Spain;2. Departamento de Biotecnología-Biología Vegetal, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Avenida Puerta de Hierro 2, 28040, Madrid, Spain
Abstract:This paper investigates the impact of referee reliability on the quality and efficiency of peer review. We modeled peer review as a process based on knowledge asymmetries and subject to evaluation bias. We tested various levels of referee reliability and different mechanisms of reviewing effort distribution among agents. We also tested different scientific community structures (cohesive vs. parochial) and competitive science environments (high vs. low competition). We found that referee behavior drastically affects peer review and an equal distribution of the reviewing effort is beneficial only if the scientific community is homogeneous and referee reliability is the rule. We also found that the Matthew effect in the allocation of resources and credit is inherent to a ‘winner takes all’ well functioning science system, more than a consequence of evaluation bias.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号