Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy
نویسندگان
چکیده
Peer review is fundamentally a cooperative process between scientists in a community who agree to review each other's work in an unbiased fashion. Peer review is the foundation for decisions concerning publication in journals, awarding of grants, and academic promotion. Here we perform a laboratory study of open and closed peer review based on an online game. We show that when reviewer behavior was made public under open review, reviewers were rewarded for refereeing and formed significantly more cooperative interactions (13% increase in cooperation, P = 0.018). We also show that referees and authors who participated in cooperative interactions had an 11% higher reviewing accuracy rate (P = 0.016). Our results suggest that increasing cooperation in the peer review process can lead to a decreased risk of reviewing errors.
منابع مشابه
How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication
Background: The publication of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals is a fairly complex and stepwise process that involves responding to referees’ comments. Little guidance is available in the biomedical literature on how to deal with such comments. Objective: The objective of this article is to provide guidance to notice writers on dealing with peer review comments in a way that maxim...
متن کاملDishonest Conformity In Peer Review
Scientific honesty in scientific publication is critical for scientific advancement, but dishonesty is commonly and increasingly observed in the forms of misconduct and other questionable practices. Focusing on dishonest conformity in peer review, in which authors reluctantly obey referees’ instructions in order to have their papers accepted even if the instructions contradict the author’s scie...
متن کاملDo Editors Have A Silver Bullet? An Agent-Based Model Of Peer Review
This paper presents an agent-based model of peer review that looks at the effect of different editorial policies of referee selection. We tested four author/referee matching scenarios as follows: random selection of referees, selection of referees with a similar status to submission authors, selection of higher-skilled and lower skilled referees. We tested these scenarios against three types of...
متن کاملWhy are women underused in the JECH peer review process?
T he quality of peer review is an essential part of the scientific process and nowadays its evaluation is an emergent area of research. The gender perspective is however, still rarely integrated in this kind of study. There is empirical evidence about sex bias in choosing referees. Women are still less required by editors than men in peer review processes. As other studies have shown, male revi...
متن کاملIncentivizing anonymous “peer-to-peer” reviews
The review cycle for papers takes way too long in many disciplines. The problem is that while authors want to have their own papers reviewed fast, that are often unwilling to review the papers of others in a timely manner. This paper explores what would be required to incentivize fast reviews using a public reputation/scoring system that exploits the fact that the referees are drawn from the sa...
متن کامل