Jury theorems for peer review

Arvan, Marcus, Bright, Liam kofi and Heesen, Remco ORCID: 0000-0003-3823-944X (2023) Jury theorems for peer review. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. ISSN 0007-0882 (In Press)

Text (Jury-theorems-for-peer-review) - Accepted Version Pending embargo until 1 January 2100. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (388kB) | Request a copy

• https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10...

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 maths 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 judgements 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.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	© 2022 The British Society for the Philosophy of Science
Divisions:	Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
Date Deposited:	13 Nov 2023 14:48
Last Modified:	22 Apr 2024 10:21
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/120713

Actions (login required)

View Item