IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/teavsa/3-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Motives Should Guide Referees? On the Design of Mechanisms to Elict Options

Author

Abstract

The fate of a paper has to be determined. It can be either accepted or rejected. Each member from among group of referees has an opinion regarding the acceptability of the paper. The desirable outcome, is the view held by the majority of referees . Howver, any referee, if asked to make a recommendation, may not provide a sincere one. This paper is concerned with the design of mechanisms for decision making based on elicited opinions.

Suggested Citation

  • Glazer, J. & Rubinstein, A., 1996. "What Motives Should Guide Referees? On the Design of Mechanisms to Elict Options," Papers 3-96, Tel Aviv - the Sackler Institute of Economic Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:fth:teavsa:3-96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alberto Chong, 2001. "On the lags between submission and acceptance: are all referees created equal?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(6), pages 423-425.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION;

    JEL classification:

    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:fth:teavsa:3-96. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/setauil.html .

    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.