Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/227633
Authors: 
Brezis, Elise S.
Birukou, Aliaksandr
Year of Publication: 
2019
Series/Report no.: 
Working Paper No. 2019-08
Abstract: 
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the causes and effects of arbitrariness in the peer review process. This paper focuses on two main reasons for the arbitrariness in peer review. The first is that referees are not homogenous and display homophily in their taste and perception of innovative ideas. The second element is that reviewers are different in the time they allocate for peer review. Our model replicates the NIPS experiment of 2014, showing that the ratings of peer review are not robust, and that altering reviewers leads to a dramatic impact on the ranking of the papers. This paper also shows that innovative works are not highly ranked in the existing peer review process, and in consequence are often rejected.
Subjects: 
arbitrariness
homophily
peer review
innovation
JEL: 
D73
G01
G18
L51
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.