通过改变同行评审算法加快发现的步伐
Accelerating the pace of discovery by changing the peer review algorithm
摘要：
科学出版物的数量不断增加，增加了审查过程的压力。投稿的数量实际上更高，因为每篇稿件在出版前往往要经过多次审查。面对大量的投稿，顶级期刊拒绝了相当一部分未经审查的手稿，可能会拒绝有价值的手稿。这种情况令作者、审稿人和编辑都感到沮丧。最近，几位编辑撰写了关于“评论家共同体的悲剧”的文章，主张对该系统进行紧急纠正。几乎每个科学家都有关于如何改进该系统的想法，但如果不是不可能的话，也很难进行实验来测试哪些措施最有效。令人惊讶的是，相对较少的尝试已经取得了模型同行评审。在这里，我实现了一个模拟框架中，同行评议的想法可以定量测试。我将作者，审稿人，手稿和期刊纳入一个基于代理的模型和同行评议系统出现从他们的互动。作为一个概念验证，我对比了当前系统的实现，在该系统中，作者决定他们提交的期刊，与一个系统中，期刊投标的手稿出版。我表明，在其他条件相同的情况下，后一种系统解决了目前与同行评审过程相关的大部分问题。管理员的评价更快，作者发表的文章更多，发表在更好的期刊上，审稿人的努力得到了最佳利用。然而，编辑需要做更多的工作。这个建模框架可以用来测试其他同行评议的解决方案，为改善科学传播方式铺平道路。
英文摘要：
The number of scientific publications is constantly rising, increasing the strain on the review process. The number of submissions is actually higher, as each manuscript is often reviewed several times before publication. To face the deluge of submissions, top journals reject a considerable fraction of manuscripts without review, potentially declining manuscripts with merit. The situation is frustrating for authors, reviewers and editors alike. Recently, several editors wrote about the ``tragedy of the reviewer commons', advocating for urgent corrections to the system. Almost every scientist has ideas on how to improve the system, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to perform experiments to test which measures would be most effective. Surprisingly, relatively few attempts have been made to model peer review. Here I implement a simulation framework in which ideas on peer review can be quantitatively tested. I incorporate authors, reviewers, manuscripts and journals into an agent-based model and a peer review system emerges from their interactions. As a proof-of-concept, I contrast an implementation of the current system, in which authors decide the journal for their submissions, with a system in which journals bid on manuscripts for publication. I show that, all other things being equal, this latter system solves most of the problems currently associated with the peer review process. Manuscripts' evaluation is faster, authors publish more and in better journals, and reviewers' effort is optimally utilized. However, more work is required from editors. This modeling framework can be used to test other solutions for peer review, leading the way for an improvement of how science is disseminated.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
