Peter J. Bentley
ABSTRACT
Procedures of peer review for research proposals often contain an implicit conflict of interest, where academics may take the role of reviewer or submitter, and thus have the capability to affect the success or failure of each other to obtain some portion of limited funds. This work models a peer review procedure for funding from the perspective of evolutionary game theory. An analysis is performed to investigate the long-term submission and review strategies evolved by the modeled academics as they attempt to maximize their funding. Repercussions of the findings are discussed.
- Robert Axelrod (1985) The Evolution Of Cooperation. Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Robert Axelrod (1989). Evolution of strategies in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. In Davis, L., editor, Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
- Brembs B. (1996): Chaos, cheating and cooperation: potential solutions to the Prisoner's Dilemma. OIKOS 76, 14--24Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ken Carslaw (2008) New Models of Peer Review: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Journal. Presented at Repository Interface for Overlaid Journal Archives Meeting on Emerging publishing models: exploring new ventures for delivering science publishing.Google Scholar
- Christoph Hauert, Silvia De Monte, Josef Hofbauer, Karl Sigmund (2002) Volunteering as Red Queen Mechanism for Cooperation in Public Goods Games. Science 10 May 2002: Vol. 296. no. 5570, pp. 1129--1132Google Scholar
- John Maynard Smith. (1982) Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Miranda Robertson (2009) What are journals for? Journal of Biology 2009, 8:1.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peter D. Taylor, Troy Day and Geoff Wild (2007) Evolution of cooperation in a finite homogeneous graph. Nature 447, 469--472Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dee Wood (2000) Peer Review in the Electronic Age: Managing the Change to New Models. Poster given at conference of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE2000), Tours May 2000.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The game of funding: modelling peer review for research grants
Recommendations
Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons
This study attempts to analyse the relationship between the peer-review activity of scholars registered in Publons and their research performance as reflected in Google Scholar. Using a scientometric approach, this work explores correlations between ...
Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues
AbstractCOVID-19-related (vs. non-related) articles appear to be more expeditiously processed and published in peer-reviewed journals. We aimed to evaluate: (i) whether COVID-19-related preprints were favored for publication, (ii) preprinting trends and ...
Cross-country differences in publishing productivity of academics in research universities
The main bibliometric databases indicate large differences in country-level scientific publishing productivity, with high growth in many East Asian countries. However, it is difficult to translate country-level publishing productivity to individual-...
Comments