Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 265–283 | Cite as

The Game Between a Biased Reviewer and His Editor

  • J. A. GarcíaEmail author
  • Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez
  • J. Fdez-Valdivia
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper shows that, for a large range of parameters, the journal editor prefers to delegate the choice to review the manuscript to the biased referee. If the peer review process is informative and the review reports are costly for the reviewers, even biased referees with extreme scientific preferences may choose to become informed about the manuscript’s quality. On the contrary, if the review process is potentially informative but the reviewer reports are not costly for the referees, the biased reviewer has no incentive to become informed about the manuscript. Furthermore, if the reports are costly for referees but the peer review processes are not potentially informative, the biased reviewers will never become informed. In this paper, we also present a web resource that helps editors to experiment with the review process as a device for information transmission.

Keywords

Peer review Bias Reviewers Editors Information Cost Informed opinion Game theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was sponsored by the Spanish Board for Science, Technology, and Innovation under Grant TIN2017-85542-P, and co-financed with European FEDER funds.

References

  1. Braben, D. W. (2004). Pioneering research: A risk worth taking. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  2. Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263(10), 1323–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callon, M. (2002). From science as an economic activity to socioeconomics of scientific research, the dynamics of emergent and consolidated techno-economic networks. In P. P. Mirowski & E. M. Sent (Eds.), Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science (pp. 277–317). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Campanario, J. M., & Martin, Brian. (2004). Challenging dominant physics paradigms. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18(3), 421–438.Google Scholar
  5. Chubin, D. E., & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  6. Diermeier, D., & Feddersen, T. J. (2000). Information and congressional hearings. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fiske, D. W., & Fogg, L. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 45, 591–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1991). Game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262061414.Google Scholar
  9. Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2015a). The author–editor game. Scientometrics, 104(1), 361–380.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1566-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2015b). Bias and effort in peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2020–2030.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2016). Authors and reviewers who suffer from confirmatory bias. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1377–1395.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2079-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee. (2011). Peer review in scientific publications. Eighth Report of Session 2010-2012, Volume II. The Stationery Office Limited.Google Scholar
  13. Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2002). Peer-review: Let’s imitate the lawyers!. Cortex, 38, 406–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions 50th anniversary edition (p. 264). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, Carole J., Sugimoto, Cassidy R., Zhang, Guo, & Cronin, Blaise. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161175.Google Scholar
  17. Martin, B. (1997). Suppression stories. Wollengong: Fund for Intellectual Dissent.Google Scholar
  18. Nature editorial. (2003). Coping with peer rejection. Nature, 425(6959), 645.Google Scholar
  19. Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., Garcia, J. A., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2016). Evolutionary games between authors and their editors. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 273, 645–655.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2015.10.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roth, W.-M. (2002). Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education, 32(2), 215–240.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016030212572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Souder, Lawrence. (2011). The ethics of scholarly peer review: A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 24(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Travis, G. D. L., & Collins, H. M. (1991). New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(3), 322–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wesseley, S. (1998). Peer review of grant applications: What do we know? The Lancet, 352(9124), 301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias de la Computación e I. A., CITIC-UGRUniversidad de GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations