IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v17y2023i4s1751157723000871.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to motivate a reviewer with a present bias to work harder

Author

Listed:
  • García, J.A.
  • Montero-Parodi, J.J.
  • Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa
  • Fdez-Valdivia, J.

Abstract

Reviewers with a present bias focus on the here and now, placing more importance on immediate rewards than on future intentions and benefits. In this paper, we are going to address two related research questions: First, can a reviewer's motivation to work hard be increased by using a higher evaluation goal? Second, would a reviewer be more willing to accept a higher evaluation goal if the review process provided a large enough reward? Using a formal model, we predict that a reviewer with a present bias increases their motivation to work hard by setting a higher goal for the manuscript evaluation (relative to having no goal). For example, the reviewer is willing to control the quality of the manuscript, in addition to helping the profession and keeping themselves up to date. However, a reviewer with a severe present bias prefers to exert a low level of effort. In this situation, we find that monetary incentives can play an important role for reviewers. In their absence, a reviewer may not accept the evaluation goal that motivates them to work hard in the peer review process. In this paper, using a series of computational experiments, we discuss the behavior of a reviewer with a present bias and the role of goal intentions and additional instrumental gains.

Suggested Citation

  • García, J.A. & Montero-Parodi, J.J. & Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa & Fdez-Valdivia, J., 2023. "How to motivate a reviewer with a present bias to work harder," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:17:y:2023:i:4:s1751157723000871
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2023.101462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157723000871
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101462?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Bravo, Giangiacomo & Takács, Károly, 2013. "Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 287-294.
    2. Matthew Rabin & Ted O'Donoghue, 1999. "Doing It Now or Later," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 103-124, March.
    3. Pitsoulis, Athanassios & Schnellenbach, Jan, 2012. "On property rights and incentives in academic publishing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1440-1447.
    4. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
    5. Niccolò Casnici & Francisco Grimaldo & Nigel Gilbert & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2017. "Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(7), pages 1763-1771, July.
    6. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    7. Jens Jirschitzka & Aileen Oeberst & Richard Göllner & Ulrike Cress, 2017. "Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1059-1092, November.
    8. Monica Aniela Zaharie & Marco Seeber, 2018. "Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1587-1609, December.
    9. Alexander K. Koch & Julia Nafziger, 2011. "Self‐regulation through Goal Setting," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 113(1), pages 212-227, March.
    10. Jose A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & Joaquín Fdez-Valdivia, 2015. "The principal-agent problem in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(2), pages 297-308, February.
    11. Flaminio Squazzoni & Elise Brezis & Ana Marušić, 2017. "Scientometrics of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 501-502, October.
    12. Raj Chetty & Emmanuel Saez & Laszlo Sandor, 2014. "What Policies Increase Prosocial Behavior? An Experiment with Referees at the Journal of Public Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(3), pages 169-188, Summer.
    13. Ulf Sandström & Martin Hällsten, 2008. "Persistent nepotism in peer-review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 175-189, February.
    14. Sergio Copiello, 2018. "On the money value of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 613-620, April.
    15. Gary D. Thompson & Satheesh V. Aradhyula & George Frisvold & Russell Tronstad, 2010. "Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews? Results of a Natural Experiment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(3), pages 678-692, January.
    16. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    17. Canoy Marcel & Veld Daan L. in ’t, 2014. "How to Boost the Production of Free Services: In Search of the Holy Referee Grail," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 79-92, June.
    18. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2022. "Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1491-1514, March.
    19. Federico Bianchi & Francisco Grimaldo & Giangiacomo Bravo & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2018. "The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1401-1420, September.
    20. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    21. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    22. Marco Seeber & Alberto Bacchelli, 2017. "Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 567-585, October.
    23. Nathan C Hall & So Yeon Lee & Sonia Rahimi, 2019. "Self-efficacy, procrastination, and burnout in post-secondary faculty: An international longitudinal analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, December.
    24. Gary D. Thompson & Satheesh V. Aradhyula & George Frisvold & Russell Tronstad, 2010. "Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews?: Results of a Natural Experiment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(3), pages 678-692, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergio Copiello, 2018. "On the money value of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 613-620, April.
    2. Monica Aniela Zaharie & Marco Seeber, 2018. "Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1587-1609, December.
    3. Bianchi, Federico & Grimaldo, Francisco & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2019. "The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 78-86.
    4. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    5. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2020. "What Do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Economics Journals," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(1), pages 195-217, March.
    6. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2017. "What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals," NBER Working Papers 23282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    8. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    9. Jawwad Noor, 2005. "Choice and Normative Preference," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2005-039, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    10. De Paola, Maria & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2015. "Procrastination, academic success and the effectiveness of a remedial program," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 217-236.
    11. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    12. Meier, Stephan & Sprenger, Charles, 2010. "Stability of Time Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 4756, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Marcelo Arbex & Enlinson Mattos, 2017. "Optimal Paternalistic Health and Human Capital Policies," Working Papers 1709, University of Windsor, Department of Economics.
    14. Joaquin Gómez-Miñambres & Eric Schniter, 2017. "Emotions and Behavior Regulation in Decision Dilemmas," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-25, May.
    15. Strulik, Holger & Werner, Katharina, 2023. "Renewable resource use with imperfect self-control," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 778-795.
    16. Read, Daniel & Roelofsma, Peter H. M. P., 2003. "Subadditive versus hyperbolic discounting: A comparison of choice and matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 140-153, July.
    17. Jing Ai & Lin Zhao & Wei Zhu, 2016. "Contracting with Present-Biased Consumers in Insurance Markets," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 41(2), pages 107-148, September.
    18. Winkler, Ralph, 2009. "Now or Never: Environmental Protection under Hyperbolic Discounting," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-22.
    19. Zachary Breig & Matthew Gibson & Jeffrey Shrader, 2019. "Why Do We Procrastinate? Present Bias and Optimism," Department of Economics Working Papers 2019-15, Department of Economics, Williams College.
    20. Backes-Gellner, Uschi & Herz, Holger & Kosfeld, Michael & Oswald, Yvonne, 2021. "Do preferences and biases predict life outcomes? Evidence from education and labor market entry decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:17:y:2023:i:4:s1751157723000871. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.