| Title |
The Game Between a Biased Reviewer and His Editor
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9998-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. A. García, Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez, J. Fdez-Valdivia |
| Abstract |
This paper shows that, for a large range of parameters, the journal editor prefers to delegate the choice to review the manuscript to the biased referee. If the peer review process is informative and the review reports are costly for the reviewers, even biased referees with extreme scientific preferences may choose to become informed about the manuscript's quality. On the contrary, if the review process is potentially informative but the reviewer reports are not costly for the referees, the biased reviewer has no incentive to become informed about the manuscript. Furthermore, if the reports are costly for referees but the peer review processes are not potentially informative, the biased reviewers will never become informed. In this paper, we also present a web resource that helps editors to experiment with the review process as a device for information transmission. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 October 2017.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#726
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,436
of 331,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#25
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.