Authors
Liam Kofi Bright
London School of Economics
Remco Heesen
University of Western Australia
Marcus Arvan
University of Tampa
Abstract
Peer review is often taken to be the main form of quality control on academic writings. Usually this is carried out by journals. Parts of math and physics appear to have now set up a parallel, crowd-sourced model of peer review, where papers are posted on the arXiv to be publicly discussed. In this paper we argue that crowd-sourced peer review is likely to do better than journal-solicited peer review at sorting papers by quality. Our argument rests on two key claims. First, crowd-sourced peer review will lead to there being on average more reviewers per paper than journal-solicited peer review. Second, due to the wisdom of the crowds, more reviewers will tend to make better judgments than fewer. We make the second claim precise by looking at the Condorcet Jury Theorem as well as two related, novel jury theorems developed specifically to apply to the case of peer review.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2020
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,244
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Reflection and Disagreement.Adam Elga - 2007 - Noûs 41 (3):478–502.
A Defense of the (Almost) Equal Weight View.Stewart Cohen - 2013 - In David Phiroze Christensen & Jennifer Lackey (eds.), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 98-117.

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Commensuration Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1272-1283,.
Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry.David Shatz - 2004 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.Mehdi Dadkhah, Mohsen Kahani & Glenn Borchardt - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1603-1610.
Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3):635-663.
The Problem of Humiliation in Peer Review.Debra R. Comer & Michael Schwartz - 2014 - Ethics and Education 9 (2):141-156.
Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-05-06

Total views
40 ( #270,974 of 2,455,478 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #143,406 of 2,455,478 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes