Peer review is a cornerstone of science. The process allows scientists to experimentally pursue new lines of research through a continuous, decentralised and socially shared process of trial and error and ensures the quality of knowledge produced. This paper investigates the impact of referee behaviour on the quality and efficiency of peer review. We focused on the importance of reciprocity motives in ensuring cooperation between all involved parties. We modelled peer review as a process based on knowledge asymmetries and subject to evaluation bias. We built various simulation scenarios in which we tested different interaction conditions and author and referee behaviour. We found that reciprocity cannot always have per se a positive effect on the quality of peer review, as it may tend to increase evaluation bias. It can have a positive effect only when reciprocity motives are inspired by disinterested standards of fairness.
Giorgio BertiniResearch on society, culture, art, neuroscience, cognition, critical thinking, intelligence, creativity, autopoiesis, self-organization, rhizomes, complexity, systems, networks, leadership, sustainability, thinkers, futures ++
Academic SupportThe Learning Change Project is a personal not for profit and without sponsors multidisciplinary initiative to support academic activities. Use the files freely for your Courses or Research. To prepare Reading Lists explore the Category List or Search for the topic of your interest. If you need any support, contact me.
470 Posts in this BlogFollow my Networks for recent Posts. For authors, date, publishers +metadata, view the source.
- Follow Learning Sciences of Change on WordPress.com
Recent Posts: Learning Art
Learning Community Change
Learning Cultural Change
Learning Philosophy of Change
Learning Political Economy of Change
Learning Research & Change Methods
Learning Sciences of Change
Learning Sustainability of Change
Learning Technologies of Change
- My Tweets