Abstract
Traditional peer-reviewing is a process whereby submissions by various scientists are selected based on certain criteria passed on to reviewers by organizers of conferences or editors of journals. This process has been used to maintain the quality of the works being presented and also to help grouping reports relevant to a given community (or topic). However, certain scientific opinions and theories compete and have partisans. Common examples of such competitions appear when deciding the most important metric in classification algorithms, what to use as a basis for recommendation algorithms, the best predicting models for a known phenomena, to name a few. The common assumption is that the community will be equally informed about the arguments of all involved studies, in order to come out with objective conclusions. This assumption is reasonable when partisans of each competing opinion can eventually review and recommend for publication the studies that agree with their perspective. In its turn, this can be expected to eventually happen whenever expert reviewers are randomly assigned to corresponding papers. However in recent years we have seen that power-law distributions instead of randomness are present in many social relationships. In this study we investigate what happens in the world of peer-reviewing, more specifically in a network of reviewing relations for an open review journal. We found that a power-law distribution is indeed present, as a small group of reviewers evaluates a significant fraction of all submissions. The problem however is that this is undesirable since these “hubs” have an unmatched influence on what gets published. This experiment presents a first case where arguably the power-law structure of the social network can be considered as an overall negative factor. It also supports an argument for employing the social graph of reviewers as an additional metric of the quality of a journal/ conference.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barabási, A.-L., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439), 509–512 (1999)
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., Jacomy, M.: Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: Intl. AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (2009)
Bird, C., Gourley, A., Devanbu, P., Gertz, M., Swaminathan, A.: Mining email social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, pp. 137–143. ACM (2006)
Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., Lefebvre, E.: Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008(10), P10008 (2008)
Divakarmurthy, P., Biswas, P., Menezes, R.: A temporal analysis of geographical distances in computer science collaborations. In: 2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom) Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), pp. 657–660. IEEE (2011)
Eagle, N., Pentland, A.S., Lazer, D.: Inferring friendship network structure by using mobile phone data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(36), 15274–15278 (2009)
Hongwen, D.: A new school of thought in sequence stratigraphic studies in us: High-resolution sequence stratigraphy. Oil & Gas Geology 2 (1995)
Koonin, E., Landweber, L., Lipman, D.: Biology Direct (2013), http://biologydirect.com/
Lambiotte, R., Delvenne, J.-C., Barahona, M.: Laplacian dynamics and multiscale modular structure in networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:0812.1770 (2008)
Moingeon, B., Ramanantsoa, B.: Understanding corporate identity: the french school of thought. European Journal of Marketing 31(5/6), 383–395 (1997)
Mroz, J.: One sperm donor, 150 offspring (2011), nytimes.com/2011/09/06/health/06donor.html
Newman, M.E.: The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review 45(2), 167–256 (2003)
Peterson, M.J., Silaghi, M.C., Yokoo, M.: Game theoretical modeling and studies of peer-reviewing methods. In: Intl. Symposium on Peer Reviewing, vol. I, pp. 267–272 (2009)
Silaghi, M., Qin, S., Cheung, W.: Open peer-review experiment in the decentralized coordination workshop. IEEE Intelligent Informatics Bulletin 13(1) (2013)
Spiegel, H.W.: The growth of economic thought. Duke Univ. Press (1971)
Barabasi, A., Vicsek, T.: Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A 311, 590–614 (2002)
Tonkinwise, C.: Material thinking design reaearch workshop: An experiment in open peer review process at connected: International conference on design education (2007), materialthinking.org
Ugander, J., Backstrom, L., Marlow, C., Kleinberg, J.: Structural diversity in social contagion. PNAS 109(16) (2012)
Watts, D., Strogatz, S.: Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature 393(6684), 440–442 (1998)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Qin, S., Silaghi, M.C., Menezes, R., Cheung, W. (2014). Negative Implications of a Power-Law Distribution: A Study on Networks of Scientific Reviewers. In: Contucci, P., Menezes, R., Omicini, A., Poncela-Casasnovas, J. (eds) Complex Networks V. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 549. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05401-8_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05401-8_29
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-05400-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05401-8
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)