A SIMULATION OF DISAGREEMENT FOR CONTROL OF RATIONAL CHEATING IN PEER REVIEW

Understanding the peer review process could help research and shed light on the mechanisms that underlie crowdsourcing. In this paper, we present an agent-based model of peer review built on three entities — the paper, the scientist and the conference. The system is implemented on a BDI platform (Jason) that allows to define a rich model of scoring, evaluating and selecting papers for conferences. Then, we propose a programme committee update mechanism based on disagreement control that is able to remove reviewers applying a strategy aimed to prevent papers better than their own to be accepted ("rational cheating"). We analyze a homogeneous scenario, where all conferences aim to the same level of quality, and a heterogeneous scenario, in which conferences request different qualities, showing how this affects the update mechanism proposed. We also present a first step toward an empirical validation of our model that compares the amount of disagreements found in real conferences with that obtained in our simulations.