Abstract
It is widely believed that one of the virtues of peer review is that it provides a self-regulating selection mechanism for scientific work, papers and projects. Peer review as a selection mechanism is hard to evaluate in terms of its efficiency. Serious efforts to understand its strengths and weaknesses have not yet lead to conclusive answers. In theory peer review works if the involved parties (editors and referees) conform to a set of requirements, such as love for high quality science, objectiveness, and absence of biases, nepotism, friend and clique networks, selfishness, etc. If these requirements are violated, what is the effect on the selection of high quality work? We study this question with a simple agent based model. In particular we are interested in the effects of rationalreferees, who might not have any incentive to see high quality work other than their own published or promoted. We find that a small fraction of incorrect (selfish or rational) referees is sufficient to drastically lower the quality of the published (accepted) scientific standard. We determine the fraction for which peer review will no longer perform better than pure chance. Decline of quality of accepted scientific work is shown as a function of the fraction of rational and unqualified referees. We show how a simple quality-increasing policy of e.g. a journal can lead to additional loss in overall scientific quality, and how mutual support-networks of authors and referees deteriorate the system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
D. Kennefick, Phys. Today 58, 43 (2009)
Nature’s peer review trial, Nature 05535 (2006), doi:10.1038/nature0553510.1038/nature05535, www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html
Editorial: Peer review and fraud, Nature 444, 971 (2006)
Editorial: Working double-blind: should there be author anonymity in peer review? Nature 451, 605 (2008)
T. Groves, Nature (Nature Peer Review debate), 04995 (2006), doi:10.1038/nature04995, www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04995.html
T. Jefferson, P. Alderson, E. Wagner, F. Davidoff, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287, 2784 (2002)
T. Jefferson, Rudin, S. Brodney Folse, F. Davidoff, Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2, MR000016 (2007)
P.M. Rothwell, C.N. Martyn, Brain 123, 1964 (2000)
F. Godlee, C.R. Gale, C.N. Martyn, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 237 (1998)
C. Wenneras, A. Wold, Nature 387, 341 (1997)
E.S. Brezis, Sci. Public Pol. 34, 691 (2007)
D.F. Horrobin, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263, 1438 (1990)
M. Mahoney, Cogn. Ther. Res. 1, 161 (1977)
B. Martin, Peer review as scholarly conformity, in Suppression Stories (Fund for Intellectual Dissent, Wollongong, 1997), pp. 69–83.
M. Ware, Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives (Publishing Research Consortium Summary Papers, 2008), Vol. 4, pp. 1–20
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thurner, S., Hanel, R. Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average. Eur. Phys. J. B 84, 707–711 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2011-20545-7
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2011-20545-7