EAGER: Accelerating the Pace of Discovery by Changing the Peer Review Algorithm

同行评议是审查学术出版物、拨款申请和科学事业发展的主要工具。然而，目前的同行审查制度承受着严重的压力，对科学质量和科学成果的传播速度产生了影响。几项研究发现，目前进行同行审查的方式可能效率低下、速度慢，甚至存在偏见。几乎每个科学家都有关于如何改进这一系统的想法，但要进行实验来确定哪些措施最有效，即使不是不可能，也是非常困难的。该项目实现了一个模拟框架，在该框架中可以定量地测试如何改进审查过程的许多想法。科学家、手稿和期刊是数字代理人，它们之间的互动形成了同行评议系统。可以运行多个实验：例如，一个概念验证应用程序展示了如何改变同行审查的执行方式，从而极大地改变了科学传播的速度。研究开发了一个成熟的开源模拟软件，允许研究当前系统的替代方案。广泛的影响拟议的工作可能会改变科学的开展方式。这一框架可以用来确定更好、更有效的同行审查模式，从而导致科学出版和资助方面的深刻变化。此外，如果这项探索性研究成功，科学社会学的一个新的计算分支可能会出现。改变同行评审的方式，以支持更快、更有效的解决方案，可能会对科学家的日常工作产生广泛影响，包括更多的学术培训和研究时间，以及修改和重新格式化手稿和拨款提案所花的时间。支持不偏不倚的做法可以扩大少数群体在科学中的代表性。

Peer review is the main tool for scrutinizing scholarly publications, grant proposals and career advancements in science. However, the current peer review system is under severe strain, with consequences for the quality of science and the rapidity of dissemination of scientific results. Several studies have found that the current way of performing peer review can be inefficient, slow, and even biased. Almost every scientist has ideas on how to improve the system, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to perform experiments to determine which measures are most effective. The project implements a simulation framework in which many ideas of how to improve the review process can be quantitatively tested.Intellectual Merit The framework is built using agent-based modeling. Scientists, manuscripts and journals are digital agents and a peer review system emerges from their interaction. Multiple experiments can be run: for example, one proof-of-concept application shows how changing the way peer review is performed can dramatically alter the pace at which science is disseminated.The research develops a full-fledged and open-source simulation software that allows to study alternatives to the current system.Broader Impacts The proposed work is potentially transformative of the way science is carried out. This framework can be used to identify better and more efficient models for peer review, leading to profound changes on scientific publishing and funding. Also, if this exploratory research is successful, a new computational branch of sociology of science could emerge. Changing the way peer review is performed to favor faster and more efficient solutions could potentially have broad effects on the daily work of scientists, including more time for academic training and research, and less time spent revising and reformatting manuscripts and grant proposals. Favoring unbiased practices could enlarge the representation of minorities in science.