Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/239751 
Authors: 
Year of Publication: 
2015
Citation: 
[Journal:] Administrative Sciences [ISSN:] 2076-3387 [Volume:] 5 [Issue:] 3 [Publisher:] MDPI [Place:] Basel [Year:] 2015 [Pages:] 125-147
Publisher: 
MDPI, Basel
Abstract: 
This paper presents an approach to conduct risk assessments of complex incentive systems, using a case study of the normative Peer Review Process (PRP). This research centers on appliances and adaptations of the Conflicting Incentives Risk Analysis (CIRA). First as an approach to Root Cause Analysis of a known incident, and then for a full assessment of the incentives in the PRP together with possible risk treatments. CIRA uses an alternative notion of risk, where risk modeling is in terms of conflicting incentives between the risk owner and the stakeholders concerning the execution of actions. Compared to traditional risk assessment approaches, CIRA provides an insight into the underlying incentives behind a risk, and not just the technical vulnerability, likelihood and consequence. The main contributions of this work are an approach to obtain insight into incentives as root causes, and an approach to detecting and analyzing risks from incentives in the normative PRP. This paper also discusses risk treatments in terms of incentives to make the PRP more robust, together with a discussion of how to approach risk analysis of incentives.
Subjects: 
conflicting incentives risk analysis
human factor
risk management
motivation
decision making
peer review
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article
Appears in Collections:

Files in This Item:
File
Size





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