IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v124y2020i3d10.1007_s11192-020-03559-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The author–reviewer game

Author

Listed:
  • J. A. Garcia

    (Universidad de Granada)

  • Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez

    (Universidad de Granada)

  • J. Fdez-Valdivia

    (Universidad de Granada)

Abstract

At the peer review stage, a natural metric to measure the performance of the author is the quality of the revised manuscript, while a natural metric to measure the performance of the reviewer is the mismatch cost between the manuscript quality and the journal standard. This mismatch refers to incorrectly or unsuitably matching the manuscript quality and the journal standard. The matching between a submission and the journal standard seeks to ensure that the manuscript quality acceptably matches the journal standard. However, we show that journals will not be able to align the interests of the author and reviewer with its own interests because these metrics create a distortion in the reviewer’s incentives. The motivational aspects of traditional peer review mechanisms are not sufficient in relation to the reviewer’s effort required to reach the best level for the journal, because this method of compensation for the reviewer side is overly mismatch cost focused. In this paper, we also show that if this compensation is extended to reward the reviewer based on the manuscript quality achieved, the journal will be able to align the interests of all parties.

Suggested Citation

  • J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2020. "The author–reviewer game," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2409-2431, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03559-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03559-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03559-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03559-6?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. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2019. "The optimal amount of information to provide in an academic manuscript," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1685-1705, December.
    2. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2020. "Confirmatory bias in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 517-533, April.
    3. S. Thurner & R. Hanel, 2011. "Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 84(4), pages 707-711, December.
    4. Flaminio Squazzoni & Claudio Gandelli, 2013. "Opening the Black-Box of Peer Review: An Agent-Based Model of Scientist Behaviour," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 16(2), pages 1-3.
    5. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 695-715, February.
    6. Marco Seeber, 2020. "How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1387-1405, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Tinglong Dai & Kinshuk Jerath, 2013. "Salesforce Compensation with Inventory Considerations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(11), pages 2490-2501, November.
    9. Paul J Roebber & David M Schultz, 2011. "Peer Review, Program Officers and Science Funding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-6, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "The interplay between the reviewer’s incentives and the journal’s quality standard," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3041-3061, April.
    2. Vecchio, Riccardo, 2022. "Fostering the debate among scholars to support the advancement of knowledge in the food-related consumer research: A commentary," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 24(2), September.
    3. Riccardo Vecchio, 2022. "Fostering the debate among scholars to support the advancement of knowledge in the food-related consumer research: A commentary," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 24(2), pages 1-15.
    4. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "Quality censoring in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 825-830, January.
    5. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "The editor-manuscript game," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4277-4295, May.
    6. 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.

    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. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "The interplay between the reviewer’s incentives and the journal’s quality standard," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3041-3061, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    4. Michail Kovanis & Ludovic Trinquart & Philippe Ravaud & Raphaël Porcher, 2017. "Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 651-671, October.
    5. Ausloos, Marcel & Nedic, Olgica & Dekanski, Aleksandar & Mrowinski, Maciej J. & Fronczak, Piotr & Fronczak, Agata, 2017. "Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals. II. An ARCH econometric-like modeling," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 468(C), pages 462-474.
    6. Mario Paolucci & Francisco Grimaldo, 2014. "Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 663-688, June.
    7. Francisco Grimaldo & Mario Paolucci & Jordi Sabater-Mir, 2018. "Reputation or peer review? The role of outliers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1421-1438, September.
    8. Pawel Sobkowicz, 2015. "Innovation Suppression and Clique Evolution in Peer-Review-Based, Competitive Research Funding Systems: An Agent-Based Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(2), pages 1-13.
    9. Bianchi, Federico & García-Costa, Daniel & Grimaldo, Francisco & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2022. "Measuring the effect of reviewers on manuscript change: A study on a sample of submissions to Royal Society journals (2006–2017)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    10. ederico Bianchi & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review [Reviewing Peer Review]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 791-800.
    11. 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.
    12. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 695-715, February.
    13. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Gandelli, Claudio, 2012. "Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 265-275.
    14. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    15. Arzum Akkaş & Nachiketa Sahoo, 2020. "Reducing Product Expiration by Aligning Salesforce Incentives: A Data‐driven Approach," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(8), pages 1992-2009, August.
    16. Le, Tam-Tri & Nguyen, Minh-Hoang, 2022. "Innovative ideas need these ‘scouts’," OSF Preprints f6qta, Center for Open Science.
    17. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    18. Kinshuk Jerath & Sang-Hyun Kim & Robert Swinney, 2017. "Product Quality in a Distribution Channel with Inventory Risk," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(5), pages 747-761, September.
    19. Huseyin Gurkan & Francis de Véricourt, 2022. "Contracting, Pricing, and Data Collection Under the AI Flywheel Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8791-8808, December.
    20. Tianqin Shi & Dilip Chhajed & Zhixi Wan & Yunchuan Liu, 2020. "Distribution Channel Choice and Divisional Conflict in Remanufacturing Operations," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(7), pages 1702-1719, July.

    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:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03559-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.