The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science

Wim G.G. Benda and Tim C.E. Engels

International Journal of Forecasting, 2011, vol. 27, issue 1, 166-182

Abstract: In this review we investigate what the available data on the predictive validity of peer review can add to our understanding of judgmental forecasting. We found that peer review attests to the relative success of judgmental forecasting by experts. Both manuscript and group-based peer review allow, on average, for accurate decisions to be made. However, tension exists between peer review and innovative ideas, even though the latter underlie scientific advance. This points to the danger of biases and preconceptions in judgments. We therefore formulate two proposals for enhancing the likelihood of innovative work.

Keywords: Advice; taking; Cognitive; bias; Decision-making; Expert; advice; Group; decision; making; Reliability (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (12)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169-2070(10)00043-9
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:intfor:v:27:y::i:1:p:166-182

Access Statistics for this article

International Journal of Forecasting is currently edited by R. J. Hyndman

More articles in International Journal of Forecasting from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().