Incentives for Research Effort: An Evolutionary Model of Publication Markets with Double-Blind and Open Review

Computational Economics 61:1433-1476 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Contemporary debates about scientific institutions and practice feature many proposed reforms. Most of these require increased efforts from scientists. But how do scientists’ incentives for effort interact? How can scientific institutions encourage scientists to invest effort in research? We explore these questions using a game-theoretic model of publication markets. We employ a base game between authors and reviewers, before assessing some of its tendencies by means of analysis and simulations. We compare how the effort expenditures of these groups interact in our model under a variety of settings, such as double-blind and open review systems. We make a number of findings, including that open review can increase the effort of authors in a range of circumstances and that these effects can manifest in a policy-relevant period of time. However, we find that open review’s impact on authors’ efforts is sensitive to the strength of several other influences.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How to judge scientific research articles.Hennie Lotter - 2000 - South African Journal for Language Teaching 34.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-04-08

Downloads
276 (#77,670)

6 months
108 (#49,928)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3):635-663.
What evidence in evidence-based medicine?John Worrall - 2002 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2002 (3):S316-S330.
Are RCTs the gold standard?Nancy Cartwright - 2007 - In Causal powers: what are they? why do we need them? what can be done with them and what cannot? Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Peer Review May Not Be Such a Bad Idea: Response to Heesen and Bright.Darrell P. Rowbottom - 2022 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 73 (4):927-940.

View all 12 references / Add more references