Game-Theoretical Analysis of Reviewer Rewards in Peer-Review Journal Systems: Analysis and Experimental Evaluation using Deep Reinforcement Learning
In this paper, we navigate the intricate domain of reviewer rewards in open-access academic publishing, leveraging the precision of mathematics and the strategic acumen of game theory. We conceptualize the prevailing voucher-based reviewer reward system as a two-player game, subsequently identifying potential shortcomings that may incline reviewers towards binary decisions. To address this issue, we propose and mathematically formalize an alternative reward system with the objective of mitigating this bias and promoting more comprehensive reviews. We engage in a detailed investigation of the properties and outcomes of both systems, employing rigorous game-theoretical analysis and deep reinforcement learning simulations. Our results underscore a noteworthy divergence between the two systems, with our proposed system demonstrating a more balanced decision distribution and enhanced stability. This research not only augments the mathematical understanding of reviewer reward systems, but it also provides valuable insights for the formulation of policies within journal review system. Our contribution to the mathematical community lies in providing a game-theoretical perspective to a real-world problem and in the application of deep reinforcement learning to simulate and understand this complex system.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Deep Reinforcement LearningNavigatereinforcement-learningReinforcement LearningSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Double blind vs. open review: an evolutionary game logit-simulating the behavior of authors and reviewers
Despite the tremendous successes of science in providing knowledge and technologies, the Replication Crisis has highlighted that scientific institutions have much room for improvement. Peer-review is one target of critic…
Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation
Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis. This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews. We ground this position in an empirical c…
Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards
The peer review process in major artificial intelligence (AI) conferences faces unprecedented challenges with the surge of paper submissions (exceeding 10,000 submissions per venue), accompanied by growing concerns over …
PositionReviewerToo: Should AI Join The Program Committee? A Look At The Future of Peer Review
Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, yet it suffers from inconsistencies, reviewer subjectivity, and scalability challenges. We introduce ReviewerToo, a modular framework for studying and deploying AI…
PeerReview4All: Fair and Accurate Reviewer Assignment in Peer Review
We consider the problem of automated assignment of papers to reviewers in conference peer review, with a focus on fairness and statistical accuracy. Our fairness objective is to maximize the review quality of the most di…
Fairness