The peer-review process,which serves as the quality-control mechanism of scientific knowledge production,has been criticized for its bias,unreliability,and inefficiency.Academic conferences and journals typically rely...The peer-review process,which serves as the quality-control mechanism of scientific knowledge production,has been criticized for its bias,unreliability,and inefficiency.Academic conferences and journals typically rely on a centralized mechanism for reviewer assignment and paper assessment.We argue that this centralization is a major factor contributing to the unreliability of the review process,leading to deficiencies in the current knowledge-assessment systems.To address this,we propose a novel decentralized model that democratizes peer review by shifting decision-making rights from centralized authorities to all scholars participating in a scholarly community.Our model includes a dual-rewarding incentive mechanism that motivates scholars to actively participate in peer review by recognizing both their effort and scientific contributions.This model transforms peer review from passive judgment to active collaboration.We simulated the model in conference settings and demonstrated its potential to revolutionize knowledge production and dissemination.展开更多
基金supported by the HNA Research Centre for Future Data Ecosystems at Imperial College London.
文摘The peer-review process,which serves as the quality-control mechanism of scientific knowledge production,has been criticized for its bias,unreliability,and inefficiency.Academic conferences and journals typically rely on a centralized mechanism for reviewer assignment and paper assessment.We argue that this centralization is a major factor contributing to the unreliability of the review process,leading to deficiencies in the current knowledge-assessment systems.To address this,we propose a novel decentralized model that democratizes peer review by shifting decision-making rights from centralized authorities to all scholars participating in a scholarly community.Our model includes a dual-rewarding incentive mechanism that motivates scholars to actively participate in peer review by recognizing both their effort and scientific contributions.This model transforms peer review from passive judgment to active collaboration.We simulated the model in conference settings and demonstrated its potential to revolutionize knowledge production and dissemination.
