Limits...
Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism.

Paolucci M, Grimaldo F - Scientometrics (2014)

Bottom Line: Peer review works as the hinge of the scientific process, mediating between research and the awareness/acceptance of its results.In addition, we also show how this result appears to be fragile against small variations in mechanisms.These findings also support prudence in the application of simulation results based on single mechanisms, and endorse the use of complex agent platforms that encourage experimentation of diverse mechanisms.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Council, Via Palestro 32, 00185 Rome, Italy.

ABSTRACT
Peer review works as the hinge of the scientific process, mediating between research and the awareness/acceptance of its results. While it might seem obvious that science would regulate itself scientifically, the consensus on peer review is eroding; a deeper understanding of its workings and potential alternatives is sorely needed. Employing a theoretical approach supported by agent-based simulation, we examined computational models of peer review, performing what we propose to call redesign, that is, the replication of simulations using different mechanisms. Here, we show that we are able to obtain the high sensitivity to rational cheating that is present in literature. In addition, we also show how this result appears to be fragile against small variations in mechanisms. Therefore, we argue that exploration of the parameter space is not enough if we want to support theoretical statements with simulation, and that exploration at the level of mechanisms is needed. These findings also support prudence in the application of simulation results based on single mechanisms, and endorse the use of complex agent platforms that encourage experimentation of diverse mechanisms.

No MeSH data available.


Evolution in time of accepted papers quality with a fixed amount (10 %) of rational cheaters. Average quality with error bars
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4016809&req=5

Fig2: Evolution in time of accepted papers quality with a fixed amount (10 %) of rational cheaters. Average quality with error bars

Mentions: For each run, we measure the number and quality of accepted papers over time. In the example shown in Fig. 2, in which we show a sample run produced by the valued scenario (see "Valued review scenario" section) with 10 % of the agents following the rational cheating strategy, the quality of accepted papers, that starts rather low, grows in time until it reaches a plateau in 2030, around which it oscillates.7Fig. 2


Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism.

Paolucci M, Grimaldo F - Scientometrics (2014)

Evolution in time of accepted papers quality with a fixed amount (10 %) of rational cheaters. Average quality with error bars
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4016809&req=5

Fig2: Evolution in time of accepted papers quality with a fixed amount (10 %) of rational cheaters. Average quality with error bars
Mentions: For each run, we measure the number and quality of accepted papers over time. In the example shown in Fig. 2, in which we show a sample run produced by the valued scenario (see "Valued review scenario" section) with 10 % of the agents following the rational cheating strategy, the quality of accepted papers, that starts rather low, grows in time until it reaches a plateau in 2030, around which it oscillates.7Fig. 2

Bottom Line: Peer review works as the hinge of the scientific process, mediating between research and the awareness/acceptance of its results.In addition, we also show how this result appears to be fragile against small variations in mechanisms.These findings also support prudence in the application of simulation results based on single mechanisms, and endorse the use of complex agent platforms that encourage experimentation of diverse mechanisms.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Council, Via Palestro 32, 00185 Rome, Italy.

ABSTRACT
Peer review works as the hinge of the scientific process, mediating between research and the awareness/acceptance of its results. While it might seem obvious that science would regulate itself scientifically, the consensus on peer review is eroding; a deeper understanding of its workings and potential alternatives is sorely needed. Employing a theoretical approach supported by agent-based simulation, we examined computational models of peer review, performing what we propose to call redesign, that is, the replication of simulations using different mechanisms. Here, we show that we are able to obtain the high sensitivity to rational cheating that is present in literature. In addition, we also show how this result appears to be fragile against small variations in mechanisms. Therefore, we argue that exploration of the parameter space is not enough if we want to support theoretical statements with simulation, and that exploration at the level of mechanisms is needed. These findings also support prudence in the application of simulation results based on single mechanisms, and endorse the use of complex agent platforms that encourage experimentation of diverse mechanisms.

No MeSH data available.