同行评议模拟模型中的等级语言异质性

Thomas Feliciani, Ramanathan Moorthy, P. Lucas, K. Shankar
{"title":"同行评议模拟模型中的等级语言异质性","authors":"Thomas Feliciani, Ramanathan Moorthy, P. Lucas, K. Shankar","doi":"10.18564/jasss.4284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Simulation models have proven to be valuable tools for studying peer review processes. However, the e ects of some of thesemodels’ assumptions have not been tested, nor have thesemodels been examined in comparative contexts. In this paper, we address two of these assumptions which go in tandem: (1) on the granularity of the evaluation scale, and (2) on the homogeneity of the grade language (i.e. whether reviewers interpret evaluation grades in the same fashion). We test the consequences of these assumptions by extending awell-known agent-basedmodel of author and reviewer behaviourwith discrete evaluation scales and reviewers’ interpretation of the grade language. In this way, we compare a peer review model with a homogeneous grade language, as assumed inmost models of peer review, with amore psychologically realistic model where reviewers interpret the grades of the evaluation scale heterogeneously. We find that grade language heterogeneity can indeed a ect the predictions of a model of peer review.","PeriodicalId":14675,"journal":{"name":"J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul.","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Grade Language Heterogeneity in Simulation Models of Peer Review\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Feliciani, Ramanathan Moorthy, P. Lucas, K. Shankar\",\"doi\":\"10.18564/jasss.4284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Simulation models have proven to be valuable tools for studying peer review processes. However, the e ects of some of thesemodels’ assumptions have not been tested, nor have thesemodels been examined in comparative contexts. In this paper, we address two of these assumptions which go in tandem: (1) on the granularity of the evaluation scale, and (2) on the homogeneity of the grade language (i.e. whether reviewers interpret evaluation grades in the same fashion). We test the consequences of these assumptions by extending awell-known agent-basedmodel of author and reviewer behaviourwith discrete evaluation scales and reviewers’ interpretation of the grade language. In this way, we compare a peer review model with a homogeneous grade language, as assumed inmost models of peer review, with amore psychologically realistic model where reviewers interpret the grades of the evaluation scale heterogeneously. We find that grade language heterogeneity can indeed a ect the predictions of a model of peer review.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul.\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.4284\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.4284","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

仿真模型已被证明是研究同行评审过程的有价值的工具。然而,这些模型的一些假设的影响尚未得到检验,也没有在比较背景下对这些模型进行检验。在本文中,我们解决了其中两个串联的假设:(1)评估量表的粒度,(2)等级语言的同质性(即评论者是否以相同的方式解释评估等级)。我们通过扩展著名的基于代理的作者和审稿人行为模型,使用离散的评估量表和审稿人对评分语言的解释来测试这些假设的结果。通过这种方式,我们比较了具有同质等级语言的同行评议模型(正如大多数同行评议模型中所假设的那样)和一个心理上更现实的模型,其中评议者对评估量表的等级进行了异质解释。我们发现年级语言异质性确实可以影响同行评议模型的预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Grade Language Heterogeneity in Simulation Models of Peer Review
Simulation models have proven to be valuable tools for studying peer review processes. However, the e ects of some of thesemodels’ assumptions have not been tested, nor have thesemodels been examined in comparative contexts. In this paper, we address two of these assumptions which go in tandem: (1) on the granularity of the evaluation scale, and (2) on the homogeneity of the grade language (i.e. whether reviewers interpret evaluation grades in the same fashion). We test the consequences of these assumptions by extending awell-known agent-basedmodel of author and reviewer behaviourwith discrete evaluation scales and reviewers’ interpretation of the grade language. In this way, we compare a peer review model with a homogeneous grade language, as assumed inmost models of peer review, with amore psychologically realistic model where reviewers interpret the grades of the evaluation scale heterogeneously. We find that grade language heterogeneity can indeed a ect the predictions of a model of peer review.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Conflicting Information and Compliance with COVID-19 Behavioral Recommendations Particle Swarm Optimization for Calibration in Spatially Explicit Agent-Based Modeling The Role of Reinforcement Learning in the Emergence of Conventions: Simulation Experiments with the Repeated Volunteer's Dilemma Generation of Synthetic Populations in Social Simulations: A Review of Methods and Practices An Integrated Ecological-Social Simulation Model of Farmer Decisions and Cropping System Performance in the Rolling Pampas (Argentina)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1