Journal article
Elise S. Brezis, Aliaksandr Birukou
Scientometrics, vol. 123(1), Springer, 2020 Apr, pp. 393-411
Scientometrics, vol. 123(1), Springer, 2020 Apr, pp. 393-411
View PDF
Cite
Cite
APA
Click to copy
Brezis, E. S., & Birukou, A. (2020). Arbitrariness in the peer review process. Scientometrics, 123(1), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1
Chicago/Turabian
Click to copy
Brezis, Elise S., and Aliaksandr Birukou. “Arbitrariness in the Peer Review Process.” Scientometrics 123, no. 1 (April 2020): 393–411.
MLA
Click to copy
Brezis, Elise S., and Aliaksandr Birukou. “Arbitrariness in the Peer Review Process.” Scientometrics, vol. 123, no. 1, Springer, Apr. 2020, pp. 393–411, doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1.
BibTeX Click to copy
@article{brezis2020a,
title = {Arbitrariness in the peer review process},
year = {2020},
month = apr,
issue = {1},
journal = {Scientometrics},
pages = {393-411},
publisher = {Springer},
volume = {123},
doi = {10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1},
author = {Brezis, Elise S. and Birukou, Aliaksandr},
month_numeric = {4}
}
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the causes and effects of arbitrariness in the peer review process. This paper focuses on two main reasons for the arbitrariness in peer review. The first is that referees are not homogenous and display homophily in their taste and perception of innovative ideas. The second element is that reviewers are different in the time they allocate for peer review. Our model replicates the NIPS experiment of 2014, showing that the ratings of peer review are not robust, and that altering reviewers leads to a dramatic impact on the ranking of the papers. This paper also shows that innovative works are not highly ranked in the existing peer review process, and in consequence are often rejected.
Keywords: arbitrariness, homophily, peer review, innovation
