Doing Science: Peer reviewing

Charge for peer reviewing

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch” is an adage described over one century ago, which became popular by Professor Milton Friedman, in 1975. It came to my mind when reading the interesting editorial by Pasternak and Glina.(1,2) Working on both sides, as an author of journals and a reviewer, I am aware of the importance of a good review. It is powerful to enhance the description of results in...

The Peer-Reviewing Game

We model a family of peer-reviewing processes as gametheoretic problems. The model helps to understand elements of existing peer-reviewing procedures, and to predict the impact of new mechanisms. The peer-reviewing for evaluation of scientific results submitted to conferences involves complex decision processes of independent participants. Significant tax-payer money is spent by governments for...

JSCI Editorial Peer Reviewing Methodology

The Peer Review Methodology Used in the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics is Based on three-tier reviews: open (or non-blind), double-blind, and participative reviews. Final acceptance depends of the three kinds of reviews but a paper should be recommended by nonblind reviewers AND blind reviewers in order to be accepted for publication. A recommendation to accept made by non-b...

A Different Look at Peer-Reviewing of Articles

Reviewing Peer Review: a Quantitative Analysis of Peer Review

In this paper we focus on the analysis of peer reviews and reviewers behavior in a number of different review processes. More specifically, we report on the development, definition and rationale of a theoretical model for peer review processes to support the identification of appropriate metrics to assess the processes main properties. We then apply the proposed model and analysis framework to ...