当前位置: X-MOL 学术Br. J. Philos. Sci. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Jury Theorems for Peer Review
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science ( IF 3.4 ) Pub Date : 2022-01-24 , DOI: 10.1086/719117
Marcus Arvan , Liam Kofi Bright , Remco Heesen

Peer review is often taken to be the main form of quality control on academic writings. Usually this is carried out by journals. Parts of math and physics appear to have now set up a parallel, crowd-sourced model of peer review, where papers are posted on the arXiv to be publicly discussed. In this paper we argue that crowd-sourced peer review is likely to do better than journal-solicited peer review at sorting papers by quality. Our argument rests on two key claims. First, crowd-sourced peer review will lead to there being on average more reviewers per paper than journal-solicited peer review. Second, due to the wisdom of the crowds, more reviewers will tend to make better judgments than fewer. We make the second claim precise by looking at the Condorcet Jury Theorem as well as two related, novel jury theorems developed specifically to apply to the case of peer review.

中文翻译:

同行评审的陪审团定理

同行评审通常被认为是学术著作质量控制的主要形式。通常这是由期刊进行的。数学和物理学的部分内容现在似乎已经建立了一个平行的、众包的同行评审模型,论文在 arXiv 上发布以供公开讨论。在本文中,我们认为众包同行评审在按质量排序论文方面可能比期刊征求同行评审做得更好。我们的论点基于两个关键主张。首先,众包同行评审将导致平均每篇论文的审稿人多于期刊征求的同行评审。其次,由于大众的智慧,更多的评论者会比更少的评论者做出更好的判断。我们通过查看孔多塞陪审团定理以及两个相关的,使第二个主张变得精确,
更新日期:2022-01-24
down
wechat
bug