IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v5y2015i3p125-147d52361.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflicting Incentives Risk Analysis: A Case Study of the Normative Peer Review Process

Author

Listed:
  • Gaute Wangen

    (Norwegian Information Security Laboratory, Center for Cyber and Information Security, Gjøvik University College, Teknologivn. 22, 2815 Gjøvik, Norway)

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to conduct risk assessments of complex incentive systems, using a case study of the normative Peer Review Process (PRP). This research centers on appliances and adaptations of the Conflicting Incentives Risk Analysis (CIRA). First as an approach to Root Cause Analysis of a known incident, and then for a full assessment of the incentives in the PRP together with possible risk treatments. CIRA uses an alternative notion of risk, where risk modeling is in terms of conflicting incentives between the risk owner and the stakeholders concerning the execution of actions. Compared to traditional risk assessment approaches, CIRA provides an insight into the underlying incentives behind a risk, and not just the technical vulnerability, likelihood and consequence. The main contributions of this work are an approach to obtain insight into incentives as root causes, and an approach to detecting and analyzing risks from incentives in the normative PRP. This paper also discusses risk treatments in terms of incentives to make the PRP more robust, together with a discussion of how to approach risk analysis of incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaute Wangen, 2015. "Conflicting Incentives Risk Analysis: A Case Study of the Normative Peer Review Process," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:5:y:2015:i:3:p:125-147:d:52361
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/5/3/125/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/5/3/125/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Taleb, Nassim N. & Sandis, Constantine, 2014. "The Skin In The Game Heuristic for Protection Against Tail Events," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 1(1-2), pages 115-135, January.
    2. Nassim N. Taleb & Constantine Sandis, 2013. "The Skin In The Game Heuristic for Protection Against Tail Events," Papers 1308.0958, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2014.
    3. Cat Ferguson & Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky, 2014. "Publishing: The peer-review scam," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 480-482, November.
    4. Jeffrey T Leek & Margaret A Taub & Fernando J Pineda, 2011. "Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-11, November.
    5. 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.
    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. Mueller, Paul D., 2021. "Adam Smith on moral judgment: Why people tend to make better judgments within liberal institutions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 813-825.
    2. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Daniel Lunn, 2021. "Regression to the tail: Why the Olympics blow up," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(2), pages 233-260, March.
    3. Teh Tian Huey & Daniel Chin Shen Li, 2016. "Measuring bank risk-taking behaviour - The risk-taking channel of Monetary Policy in Malaysia," IFC Working Papers 16, Bank for International Settlements.
    4. Phillips, Emir & Desmoulins-Lebeault, Francois, 2018. "An FSB board member can better align corporate governance with SIFI sustainability," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 112-120.
    5. Ángel Estrada & Christian Castro, 2021. "Function and application of the new macroprudential tools available to the Banco de España," Financial Stability Review, Banco de España, issue Spring.
    6. Teh Tian Huey & Daniel Chin Shen Li, 2017. "Measuring bank risk-taking behaviour: the risk-taking channel of monetary policy in Malaysia," IFC Bulletins chapters, in: Bank for International Settlements (ed.), Statistical implications of the new financial landscape, volume 43, Bank for International Settlements.
    7. Friesz, Melinda & Váradi, Kata, 2023. "Your skin or mine: Ensuring the viability of a central counterparty," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    8. Emily Skarbek, 2014. "The Chicago Fire of 1871: a bottom-up approach to disaster relief," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 155-180, July.
    9. Ángel Estrada & Christian Castro, 2021. "Function and application of the new macroprudential tools available to the Banco de España," Financial Stability Review, Banco de España, issue Spring.
    10. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    11. Claudiu Herteliu & Marcel Ausloos & Bogdan Vasile Ileanu & Giulia Rotundo & Tudorel Andrei, 2017. "Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    13. Hamilton, Daniel George & Fraser, Hannah & Hoekstra, Rink & Fidler, Fiona, 2020. "Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review," MetaArXiv qkjy4, Center for Open Science.
    14. Ahmad Yaman Abdin & Muhammad Jawad Nasim & Yannick Ney & Claus Jacob, 2021. "The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, March.
    15. Mantas Radzvilas & Francesco De Pretis & William Peden & Daniele Tortoli & Barbara Osimani, 2023. "Incentives for Research Effort: An Evolutionary Model of Publication Markets with Double-Blind and Open Review," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 61(4), pages 1433-1476, April.
    16. Emilija Stojmenova Duh & Andrej Duh & Uroš Droftina & Tim Kos & Urban Duh & Tanja Simonič Korošak & Dean Korošak, 2019. "Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, May.
    17. 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).
    18. Sun, Zhuanlan & Liu, Sheng & Li, Yiwei & Ma, Chao, 2023. "Expedited editorial decision in COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    19. Jennifer Lewis Priestley & Robert J. McGrath, 2019. "The Evolution of Data Science: A New Mode of Knowledge Production," International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), IGI Global, vol. 15(2), pages 97-109, April.
    20. Follert, Florian & Naumann, Chantal & Thieme, Lutz, 2020. "Between scientific publication and public perception: Some economic remarks on the allocation of time in science," Working Papers of the European Institute for Socioeconomics 34, European Institute for Socioeconomics (EIS), Saarbrücken.

    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:gam:jadmsc:v:5:y:2015:i:3:p:125-147:d:52361. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.