English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/197378
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE
Exportar a otros formatos:


Reputation or peer review? The role of outliers

AuthorsGrimaldo, F.; Paolucci, Mario; Sabater-Mir, Jordi CSIC ORCID
KeywordsPeer review
Agent-based simulation
Multi-disciplinary science
Information filter
Issue DateSep-2018
PublisherSpringer Nature
CitationScientometrics 116(3): 1421-1438 (2018)
AbstractWe present an agent-based model of paper publication and consumption that allows to study the effect of two different evaluation mechanisms, peer review and reputation, on the quality of the manuscripts accessed by a scientific community. The model was empirically calibrated on two data sets, mono- and multi-disciplinary. Our results point out that disciplinary settings differ in the rapidity with which they deal with extreme events—papers that have an extremely high quality, that we call outliers. In the mono-disciplinary case, reputation is better than traditional peer review to optimize the quality of papers read by researchers. In the multi-disciplinary case, if the quality landscape is relatively flat, a reputation system also performs better. In the presence of outliers, peer review is more effective. Our simulation suggests that a reputation system could perform better than peer review as a scientific information filter for quality except when research is multi-disciplinary and in a field where outliers exist.
Publisher version (URL)http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2826-3
Appears in Collections:(IIIA) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
accesoRestringido.pdf15,35 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
Show full item record
Review this work

Related articles:

WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.