Optimal Design of Peer Review and Self-Assessment Schemes

Sandeep Baliga () and Tomas Sjostrom

RAND Journal of Economics, 2001, vol. 32, issue 1, 27-51

Abstract: A principal must decide whether or not to implement a project that originated with one of her employees. Several employees have information about the quality of the project. A successfully implemented project raises the inventor's chance of promotion, at his peer's expense, but a failed project ruins the inventor's career. An employee who has a relatively good reputation (and therefore is happy with the status quo) must be encouraged to promote new ideas. An employee who has a relatively bad reputation (and therefore wants to change the status quo) must be prevented from exaggerating the quality of new ideas. We study incentive-compatible and renegotiation-proof mechanisms, and we find that self-assessment (without any peer reports) is optimal. Copyright 2001 by the RAND Corporation.

Date: 2001
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (17)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
Working Paper: Optimal Design of Peer Review and Self-Assessment Schemes (2000)
Working Paper: Optimal Design of Peer Review and Self-Assessment Schemes (1999)
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:rje:randje:v:32:y:2001:i:1:p:27-51

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://editorialexp ... i-bin/rje_online.cgi

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in RAND Journal of Economics from The RAND Corporation
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().