Monday, 9 November 2015

New pubnlications on peer reivew

Casnici N., Grimaldo F., Gilbert N. and Squazzoni F. (2015) Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis, JASIST (Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology), forthcoming

Bianchi F. and Squazzoni F. (2015) Is Three Better Than One? Simulating the Effect of Multiple Reviewer Selection on the Quality and Efficiency of Peer Review, Ylmaz et al. (Eds), Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference

Cowley S. (2015) How peer review constrains cognition: on the frontline in the knowledge sector, Frontiers in Psychology

Nedić O. and Dekanski A. (2015) A survey on publishing policies of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society – On the occasion of the 80th volume, The Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 959-969, 2015

Caram L.F., Caiafa C. F., Ausloos,M. and Proto A. N. (2015) Cooperative peer-to-peer multiagent-based systems, Physical Review E, E 92, 022805

Huutoniemi K. (2015) Interdisciplinarity as Academic Accountability: Prospects for Quality Control Across Disciplinary Boundaries, Social Epistemology A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy (DOI:10.1080/02691728.2015.
As collected by the PEERE COST action.

Thursday, 5 November 2015

Paper: Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers’ Work

This paper reports the results of a survey of academics about their attitudes and experiences of peer review.

Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers’ Work

Marijke Breuninga1, Jeremy Backstroma2, Jeremy Brannona1, Benjamin Isaak Grossa1 and Michael Widmeiera1

a1 University of North Texas
a2 National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and the Responses to Terrorism (START)


As new academic journals have emerged in political science and existing journals experience increasing submission rates, editors are concerned that scholars experience “reviewer fatigue.” Editors often assume that an overload of requests to review makes scholars less willing to perform the anonymous yet time-consuming tasks associated with reviewing manuscripts. To date, there has not been a systematic investigation of the reasons why scholars decline to review. We empirically investigated the rate at which scholars accept or decline to review, as well as the reasons they gave for declining. We found that reviewer fatigue is only one of several reasons why scholars decline to review. The evidence suggests that scholars are willing to review but that they also lead busy professional and personal lives.

The paper is at:

Wednesday, 4 November 2015

Paper modelling the impact of possible EU research funding policies

Ahrweiler, Petra, Schilperoord, Michel, Pyka, Andreas and Gilbert, Nigel (2015) 'Modelling Research Policy:  Ex-Ante Evaluation of Complex Policy Instruments' Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 18 (4) 5 <>. doi: 10.18564/jasss.2927


This paper presents the agent-based model INFSO-SKIN, which provides ex-ante evaluation of possible funding policies in Horizon 2020 for the European Commission’s DG Information Society and Media (DG INFSO). Informed by a large dataset recording the details of funded projects, the simulation model is set up to reproduce and assess the funding strategies, the funded organisations and projects, and the resulting network structures of the Commission’s Framework 7 (FP7) programme. To address the evaluative questions of DG INFSO, this model, extrapolated into the future without any policy changes, is taken as an evidence-based benchmark for further experiments. Against this baseline scenario the following example policy changes are tested: (i) What if there were changes to the thematic scope of the programme? (ii) What if there were changes to the instruments of funding? (iii) What if there were changes to the overall amount of programme funding? (iv) What if there were changes to increase Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) participation? The results of these simulation experiments reveal some likely scenarios as policy options for Horizon 2020. The paper thus demonstrates that realistic modelling with a close data-to-model link can directly provide policy advice.

Monday, 7 September 2015

Session of 3 papers on Simulating the Social Processes of Science @SocSim 2015

Social Simulation 2015
Tuesday September 15
location: Het Kasteel, Melkweg 1, Groningen  

14:00 – 15:30 
Simulating the Social Processes of Science
116: Flaminio Squazzoni and Federico Bianchi. Is three better than one? An agent-based model of the reviewer selection in peer review
121: Matthias Meyer, Iris Lorscheid and Jonas Hauke. The Recent Development of Social Simulation as Reflected in JASSS from 2008-2014: A Citation and Co-Citation Analysis.

7: Georg Mueller. Simulating Thomas Kuhn‘s Scientific Revolutions: The Example of the Paradigm Change from System Dynamics to Agent Based Modelling 

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

New paper by Loet Leydesdorff "Can intellectual processes in the sciences also be simulated? The anticipation and visualization of possible future states"

Can intellectual processes in the sciences also be simulated? The anticipation and visualization of possible future states


Socio-cognitive action reproduces and changes both social and cognitive structures. The analytical distinction between these dimensions of structure provides us with richer models of scientific development. In this study, I assume that (1) social structures organize expectations into belief structures that can be attributed to individuals and communities; (2) expectations are specified in scholarly literature; and (3) intellectually the sciences (disciplines, specialties) tend to self-organize as systems of rationalized expectations. Whereas social organizations remain localized, academic writings can circulate, and expectations can be stabilized and globalized using symbolically generalized codes of communication. The intellectual restructuring, however, remains latent as a second-order dynamics that can be accessed by participants only reflexively. Yet, the emerging “horizons of meaning” provide feedback to the historically developing organizations by constraining the possible future states as boundary conditions. I propose to model these possible future states using incursive and hyper-incursive equations from the computation of anticipatory systems. Simulations of these equations enable us to visualize the couplings among the historical—i.e., recursive—progression of social structures along trajectories, the evolutionary—i.e., hyper-incursive—development of systems of expectations at the regime level, and the incursive instantiations of expectations in actions, organizations, and texts.

In Scientometrics, online first, open access:

Sunday, 12 April 2015

Submission dealing for special session extended to 27th April

The deadline for all Social Simulation submissions, including for those for the special session on simulating the social processes of science, have the deadline extended to 27th April.

Thursday, 9 April 2015

Paper: "Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation"

A review article in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, describing experiments in a project on opening peer review (see coming out of the LiquidPub project.

Aliaksandr Birukou, Joseph Rushton Wakeling, Claudio Bartolin3, Fabio Casati1, Maurizio Marchese, Katsiaryna Mirylenka, Nardine Osman, Azzurra Ragone, Carles Sierra and Aalam Wassef (2011) Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation. Front. Comput. Neurosci., 14 December 2011. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00056
In this paper we review several novel approaches for research evaluation. We start with a brief overview of the peer review, its controversies, and metrics for assessing efficiency and overall quality of the peer review. We then discuss five approaches, including reputation-based ones, that come out of the research carried out by the LiquidPub project and research groups collaborated with LiquidPub. Those approaches are alternative or complementary to traditional peer review. We discuss pros and cons of the proposed approaches and conclude with a vision for the future of the research evaluation, arguing that no single system can suit all stakeholders in various communities.