Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism.
Peer review works as the hinge of the scientific process, mediating between research and the awareness/acceptance of its results. While it might seem obvious that science would regulate itself scientifically, the consensus on peer review is eroding; a deeper understanding of its workings and potential alternatives is sorely needed. Employing a theoretical approach supported by agent-based simulation, we examined computational models of peer review, performing what we propose to callredesign, that is, the replication of simulations using differentmechanisms. Here, we show that we are able to obtain the high sensitivity to rational cheating that is present in literature. In addition, we also show how this result appears to be fragile against small variations in mechanisms. Therefore, we argue that exploration of the parameter space is not enough if we want to support theoretical statements with simulation, and that exploration at the level of mechanisms is needed. These findings also support prudence in the application of simulation results based on single mechanisms, and endorse the use of complex agent platforms that encourage experimentation of diverse mechanisms.
Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Council, Via Palestro 32, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Mario
M
Paolucci
Departament d'Informàtica, Universitat de València, Av. de la Universitat, s/n, Burjassot, 46100 Valencia, Spain.
Francisco
F
Grimaldo
Agent-based simulation; BDI approach; Mechanism change; Peer review; Rational cheating; Restrained cheaters