Incentives for Research Effort: An Evolutionary Model of Publication Markets with Double-Blind and Open Review
-
Published:2022-04-08
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:0927-7099
-
Container-title:Computational Economics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Comput Econ
Author:
Radzvilas MantasORCID, De Pretis FrancescoORCID, Peden WilliamORCID, Tortoli DanieleORCID, Osimani BarbaraORCID
Abstract
AbstractContemporary debates about scientific institutions and practice feature many proposed reforms. Most of these require increased efforts from scientists. But how do scientists’ incentives for effort interact? How can scientific institutions encourage scientists to invest effort in research? We explore these questions using a game-theoretic model of publication markets. We employ a base game between authors and reviewers, before assessing some of its tendencies by means of analysis and simulations. We compare how the effort expenditures of these groups interact in our model under a variety of settings, such as double-blind and open review systems. We make a number of findings, including that open review can increase the effort of authors in a range of circumstances and that these effects can manifest in a policy-relevant period of time. However, we find that open review’s impact on authors’ efforts is sensitive to the strength of several other influences.
Funder
European Research Council Universität Konstanz
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computer Science Applications,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
Reference84 articles.
1. Abdin, A. Y., Nasim, M. J., Ney, Y., & Jacob, C. (2021). The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R). Publications, 9(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010013 2. AllTrials. (2014). Retrieved March 1, 2022, from https://www.alltrials.net/ 3. Alós-Ferrer, C., & Netzer, N. (2010). The logit-response dynamics. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2009.08.004 4. Armstrong, J. S. (1997). Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3 5. Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R., Bollen, K. A., Brembs, B., Brown, L., Camerer, C., Cesarini, D., Chambers, C. D., Clyde, M., Cook, T. D., Boeck, P. D., Dienes, Z., Dreber, A., Easwaran, K., Efferson, C., … Johnson, V. E. (2017). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human. Behaviour, 2(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|