Peer review under the microscope. An agent-based model of scientific collaboration

This paper investigates whether the quality and efficiency of peer review is more influenced by scientists' behaviour or by the type of scientific community structure (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous). We looked especially at the importance of reciprocity and fairness to ensure cooperation between everyone involved and the role of evaluation standards to reduce parochialism. We modelled peer review as a process based on knowledge asymmetries and subject to evaluation bias. We found that reciprocity can have a positive effect on peer review only when agents are not driven by self-interest motivation and are inspired by standards of fairness. Secondly, we found that in a strong competitive scientific landscape, high quality of peer review can be achieved when shared evaluation standards are supported by normative standards of conduct. Finally, we found that unequal resource allocation in science (e.g., reputation and funds) is the consequence of good peer review standards.