科学期刊同行评议信息系统中评价者激励的建模

Serials Librarian Pub Date : 2022-07-04 DOI:10.1080/0361526X.2022.2089949

R. Vragov

{"title":"科学期刊同行评议信息系统中评价者激励的建模","authors":"R. Vragov","doi":"10.1080/0361526X.2022.2089949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article models the rational incentives involved in providing an informative evaluation for a knowledge management system when the evaluation has some consequences to the evaluator. The analysis is carried out in the context of the peer review process that is currently used to select articles for publication in scientific journals. The article uses the model to evaluate some proposed and implemented improvements to the peer review process. In conclusion, the article outlines other approaches that can result in improvements to the peer review process and invites further empirical research. While the article focuses on academic publishing in the sciences, there is some discussion on how its conclusions could be extended into the humanities or inter-disciplinary scholarship.","PeriodicalId":39557,"journal":{"name":"Serials Librarian","volume":"83 1","pages":"99 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modeling Evaluator Incentives in a Peer Review Information System for Scientific Journals\",\"authors\":\"R. Vragov\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0361526X.2022.2089949\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article models the rational incentives involved in providing an informative evaluation for a knowledge management system when the evaluation has some consequences to the evaluator. The analysis is carried out in the context of the peer review process that is currently used to select articles for publication in scientific journals. The article uses the model to evaluate some proposed and implemented improvements to the peer review process. In conclusion, the article outlines other approaches that can result in improvements to the peer review process and invites further empirical research. While the article focuses on academic publishing in the sciences, there is some discussion on how its conclusions could be extended into the humanities or inter-disciplinary scholarship.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39557,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Serials Librarian\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"99 - 114\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Serials Librarian\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2022.2089949\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Serials Librarian","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2022.2089949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文模拟了当评估对评估者有一定影响时，为知识管理系统提供信息性评估所涉及的理性激励。该分析是在同行评议过程的背景下进行的，该过程目前用于选择在科学期刊上发表的文章。本文使用该模型来评估对同行评审过程提出和实施的一些改进。最后，本文概述了其他可以改进同行评审过程的方法，并邀请进一步的实证研究。虽然这篇文章关注的是科学领域的学术出版，但也有一些关于如何将其结论扩展到人文学科或跨学科学术领域的讨论。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Modeling Evaluator Incentives in a Peer Review Information System for Scientific Journals

ABSTRACT This article models the rational incentives involved in providing an informative evaluation for a knowledge management system when the evaluation has some consequences to the evaluator. The analysis is carried out in the context of the peer review process that is currently used to select articles for publication in scientific journals. The article uses the model to evaluate some proposed and implemented improvements to the peer review process. In conclusion, the article outlines other approaches that can result in improvements to the peer review process and invites further empirical research. While the article focuses on academic publishing in the sciences, there is some discussion on how its conclusions could be extended into the humanities or inter-disciplinary scholarship.

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

Serials Librarian Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Serials Librarian is an international journal covering all aspects of the management of serials and other continuing resources in any format—print, electronic, etc.—ranging from their publication, to their abstracting and indexing by commercial services, and their collection and processing by libraries. The journal provides a forum for discussion and innovation for all those involved in the serials information chain, but especially for librarians and other library staff, be they in a single (continuing resources) department or in collection development, acquisitions, cataloging/metadata, or information technology departments.