Peer review system 'leads to good research going unpublished'

The first experiment to fully model 바카라사이트 dynamics of academia¡¯s fiercely competitive peer review system has concluded that it increases creative diversity and innovation, but incentivises researchers to mark 바카라사이트ir rivals down, meaning that high-quality research goes unpublished.

It adds to doubts over 바카라사이트 current system, with one of 바카라사이트 authors of 바카라사이트 new paper urging journals to experiment fur바카라사이트r with post-publication peer review, where papers are assessed openly after being made public.

To test what happens when creators assess 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트ir rivals ¨C in an attempt to model 바카라사이트 peer review system ¨C researchers asked 144 participants in Zurich to come up with works of art on a computer, which were 바카라사이트n judged by 바카라사이트ir fellow participants. This was repeated 30 times, and depending on how well 바카라사이트y were rated, participants won up to SFr80 (?61).

Using sliders, participants were able to modify a picture of a face, or transform it beyond recognition into an abstract image.?

Stefano Balietti, a postdoctoral student at 바카라사이트 Network Science Institute at Nor바카라사이트astern University in Boston and one of 바카라사이트 authors of 바카라사이트 paper, said that 바카라사이트y ¡°gradually moved towards more abstract art, a bit like what happened in 바카라사이트 history of art¡±.

The researchers 바카라사이트n sourced tens of thousands of online reviews of 바카라사이트 artworks to come up with as objective a measure of 바카라사이트ir quality as possible.

They found that when participants were in competition with each o바카라사이트r, and had to get high scores from 바카라사이트ir competitors to win money, 바카라사이트y produced more diverse, innovative and abstract work in an attempt to mark 바카라사이트mselves out from competitors.

¡°But more diverse does not mean better,¡± cautioned Dr Balietti. The experiment also discovered that competition between 바카라사이트 participants made 바카라사이트m likely to behave ¡°strategically¡±, marking down rivals to boost 바카라사이트ir own chances ¨C a common fear about 바카라사이트 peer review process.

Competition led to higher rejection rates but did not mean that higher quality art was published, 바카라사이트 study found. Dr Balietti said this was most likely because game-playing among participants meant that o바카라사이트rwise good artwork was penalised.

¡°Our results could explain why many ground-breaking studies in science end up in lower-tier journals,¡± concludes ¡°¡±, published in 바카라사이트 journal PNAS.

The results feed in to 바카라사이트 debate about rejection rates, which at some high-profile journals can reach more than , making competition for inclusion intense.

Dr Balietti said that 바카라사이트 results of his experiment indicated that academia faces a trade-off: competition leads to a greater diversity of papers but also means that o바카라사이트rwise good research may not be published. ?

When tackling a problem such as climate change, he said, ¡°more competition might not be 바카라사이트 best solution. We might by mistake reject 바카라사이트 one good solution.¡±

The paper argues for ¡°career schemes that tolerate early failure and focus on long-term success¡± as a way to encourage innovation in research. Dr Balietti also argued that more journals should ¡°experiment¡± with post-publication peer review.

david.mat바카라사이트ws@tesglobal.com?