Projects per year
Abstract
Peer review is often taken to be the main form of quality control on academic research. Usually journals carry this out. However, parts of math and physics appear to have 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 on average to 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 jury theorems developed specifically to apply to peer review.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Accepted/In press - 2025 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Jury Theorems for Peer Review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Projects
- 1 Finished
-
Understanding Statistical Biases in Peer Review
Heesen, R. (Investigator 01)
1/02/19 → 31/01/23
Project: Research
Press/Media
-
Ipse Dixit Podcast Episode 669 - Remco Heesen & Liam Bright on Peer Review
Heesen, R. & Bright, L. K.
18/12/20
1 item of Media coverage
Press/Media: Press / Media