Search

This paper studies the grant peer review process employed by the Turkish regional development agencies, which is adapted from a review procedure of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the European Union. To model this process, we consider a Bayesian strategic-form game played by three reviewers who observe both a common and a private score signal about an evaluated project and assign their scores to minimize the sum of their disutilities from the false acceptance and false rejection of the project. We numerically compute the Bayesian Nash equilibria of this game and conduct several comparative statics exercises, after calibrating the model parameters accordingly. We also introduce two simpler review processes and compare their performances to that of the calibrated process in terms of outcome statistics, involving pass and fail rates of the evaluated projects, and manipulation statistics, involving the reviewers' manipulation rate and size of scores. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

This paper investigates the impact of referee reliability on the quality and efficiency of peer review. We modeled peer review as a process based on knowledge asymmetries and subject to evaluation bias. We tested various levels of referee reliability and different mechanisms of reviewing effort distribution among agents. We also tested different scientific community structures (cohesive vs. parochial) and competitive science environments (high vs. low competition). We found that referee behavior drastically affects peer review and an equal distribution of the reviewing effort is beneficial only if the scientific community is homogeneous and referee reliability is the rule. We also found that the Matthew effect in the allocation of resources and credit is inherent to a ‘winner takes all’ well functioning science system, more than a consequence of evaluation bias.