An evolutionary explanation of assassins and zealots in peer review

Jorge Chamorro-Padial, Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez, J. Fdez-Valdivia and J. A. Garcia ()
Additional contact information
Jorge Chamorro-Padial: Universidad de Granada
Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez: Universidad de Granada
J. Fdez-Valdivia: Universidad de Granada
J. A. Garcia: Universidad de Granada

Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 120, issue 3, No 19, 1373-1385

Abstract: Abstract The peer review system aims to be effective in separating unacceptable from acceptable manuscripts. However, a reviewer can distinguish them or not. If reviewers distinguish unacceptable from acceptable manuscripts they use a fine partition of categories. But, if reviewers do not distinguish them they use a coarse partition in the evaluation of manuscripts. Most reviewers learned how to evaluate a manuscript from good and bad experiences, and they have been characterized as zealots (who uncritically favor a manuscript), assassins (who advise rejection much more frequently than the norm), and mainstream referees. In this paper we use the quasi-species model to describe the evolution of recommendation profiles in peer review. A recommendation profile is composed of a reviewer recommendation for each manuscript category under a particular categorization of manuscripts (fine or coarse). We see the reviewer mind as being built up with recommendation profiles. Assassins, zealots and mainstream reviewers are “ecologically” interrelated species whose progeny tend to mutate through errors made in the process of reviewer training. We define the recommendation profile as replicator, and selection arises because different types of recommendation profiles tend to replicate at different rates. Our results help to explain why assassins and zealots evolutionary appear in peer review because of the evolutionary success of reviewers who do not distinguish acceptable and unacceptable manuscripts.

Keywords: Peer review; Reviewers; Assassins; Zealots; Manuscript categories; Quasi-species (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03171-3 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:spr:scient:v:120:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03171-3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03171-3

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().