Peer reviewing in scientific journals is a black box. There are known inputs and outputs but the process itself is mostly unknown. As a result, there are few incentives built into the current system to make peer reviewering both quick and high-quality.
Peer-reviewing could be improved by gamification, explicitly defining the rules and what winning looks like. Reviewers/players could be tracked on a public or private scoreboard. Reviewers would earn points for completing their reviews early. They move up to more prestigious journals/leagues by the quality of their reviews. Submitters or editors could then pick reviewers based on objective metrics of their work. It would also provide another data point for merit-based academic promotions.
No comments:
Post a Comment