发表机构
School of Information Technology, University of Cincinnati（辛辛那提大学信息科技学院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文设计了一种以同行评审为货币、不向读者或作者收费的开放获取期刊，并通过代理模拟验证其可行性，发现创世区块和评审升级机制对社区运行至关重要。
AI 中文摘要
开放获取出版已将学术交流的大部分成本从读者转移到作者，而同行评审的劳动仍然是无偿且分配不均的。本文描述了《Quorum：信息技术开放期刊》（http://quorum-journal.org）的设计，该期刊既不向读者收费，也不向作者收费，而是以同行评审作为其货币。学者每完成一篇稿件的第一份完整评审，即可获得一个信用点，一个信用点可支付一次投稿。每篇稿件接受三位专家自动匹配的双盲评审，编辑决定遵循已发布的规则而非编辑的自由裁量。本文记录了信用账本、称为创世区块的启动机制、七天后扩大范围并向志愿者开放论文的评审者搜索、决定规则以及诚信保障措施。一项基于代理的模拟，在每种情景下运行两个模拟年并重复40次，评估了这些选择。没有创世区块时，任何重复运行中都没有论文提交。有了创世区块，一个从40人增长到约330人的社区提交了约603篇论文，论文等待完整评审小组的中位时间为7天。第7天的升级措施在大型社区中效果温和，但在约60人的小型社区中效果显著，移除该措施后，60天后有48.8%的论文没有评审小组，而保留该措施时这一比例为4.6%。未使用的信用点在两年后也累积到每位成员约3.7个，这指向了期刊在发展过程中将面临的一个政策选择。
英文摘要
Open access publishing has moved much of the cost of scholarly communication from readers to authors, while the labor of peer review remains unpaid and unevenly shared. This paper describes the design of Quorum: An Open Journal of Information Technology (jquorum.org), a journal that charges neither readers nor authors and uses peer review as its currency instead. Every first complete review a scholar writes on a manuscript earns one credit, and one credit pays for one submission. Each manuscript receives three double-blind reviews from reviewers matched automatically by expertise, and editorial decisions follow published rules rather than editor discretion. The paper documents the credit ledger, a bootstrapping mechanism called the genesis block, a reviewer search that widens after seven days and opens the paper to volunteers, the decision rules, and the integrity safeguards. An agent-based simulation, run for two simulated years with 40 replications per scenario, evaluates these choices. Without the genesis block, no paper was submitted in any replication. With it, a community growing from 40 to about 330 members submitted about 603 papers, and papers waited a median of 7 days for a full review panel. The day-7 escalation had a modest effect in a large community but a decisive one in a small community of about 60 members, where removing it left 48.8% of papers without a panel after 60 days, compared with 4.6% with it. Unspent credits also accumulated to about 3.7 per member after two years, which points to a policy choice the journal will face as it grows.
Comments14 pages and 5 figures
